HL Deb 01 July 1937 vol 105 cc971-1005

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

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

My Lords, before we take the Amendments which are down for consideration, I would ask leave to make a brief statement on the constitution of the Livestock Commission which is to be primarily responsible for the administration of this Bill. The Commission's duties will be many and important, and it is felt to be essential that men of wide administrative experience should be appointed In the opinion of the Agricultural Ministers, no better choice could be made for the nucleus of the Commission than the seven gentlemen at present serving as members of the Cattle Committee. That Committee has been responsible for the administration of the subsidy under the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts, 1934 to 1936, and the smoothness with which the machinery has worked is a testimony both to the ability of the members of the Committee and to the willingness of all sections of the industry to assist in the day-to-day administration.

I am very glad, therefore, to be able to inform your Lordships that the Chairman, Sir John Chancellor, and all his colleagues on the Cattle Committee have expressed, individually, their willingness to serve on the Livestock Commission when Ministers are in a position to set up that body. I am sure we are extremely fortunate in being able to ensure a smooth transition from the emergency to the permanent arrangements for paying the subsidy and to undertake, with the confidence of the industry, the administration of the other aspects of the far-reaching proposals that this Bill contains.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

Would the noble Earl kindly inform the House who are the other members of the Commission?

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The other members of the Commission are:—Vice-Chairman, Sir Francis Boys; Mr. George Dallas, Sir Robert Greig, Sir Harold Howitt, Sir John Boyd Orr, and the Hon. Jasper Ridley. The Cattle Committee consists of a Chairman and six other members, while the Bill provides that the Livestock Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not more than eight other members. The question of appointing two further persons to serve on the Commission will receive the careful consideration of the Agricultural Ministers in due course.

Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

Clause 3 [Livestock Advisory Committee]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "who" ["sub-committee … who shall consider"] and insert "which" The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 19, leave out ("who") and insert ("which").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, I am very pleased to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Subsidy arrangements]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 33, after ("purposes") insert ("and generally for securing that subsidy payments are properly made").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11:

Power of Board of Trade to regulate importation of livestock and meat.

11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board of Trade may by order regulate the importation into the United Kingdom of any such livestock or meat as may be described in the order, if it appears to the Board, having regard to the interests of all classes of persons concerned, whether producers or consumers, and to the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and other countries, that the making of the order is desirable in order to secure the stability of the market for livestock and meat in the United Kingdom.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after "Trade," to insert "after consultation with the Ministers." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Amendments of which I have given notice on this clause were moved when the House was in Committee on this Bill. When we reached Clause 14 I called the attention of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the fact that certain words in that clause provided for consultation, notwithstanding the fact that in Clause 11 the noble Earl did not feel inclined to accept my suggestion in favour of consultation when the Board of Trade made a regulation regarding importation into the United Kingdom. No answer was given as to why consultation was included in Clause 14. Obviously there was good reason for consultation under Clause 14, and it seems to me there is equally good reason for consultation under Clause 11 in the matter of the importation of livestock.

In this particular matter there was last year a most unfortunate example of consultation not taking place, when the Board of Trade made an order allowing the importation of potatoes when the Scottish crop was just ready for consumption, with the result that, notwithstanding the protest of the Potato Marketing Board, the importation was allowed. It seems to me the same might easily happen in the importation of livestock. It is therefore even more important that there should be proper consultation with the Ministers responsible before the Board of Trade made an order. I have put down this Amendment in order that the matter may be reconsidered again to-day, because I cannot help thinking that after the noble Earl has had an opportunity for a week of considering the matter, he will think that this is a most reasonable improvement to Clause 11. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 7, after ("Trade") insert ("after consultation with the Ministers").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair).

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARE)

My Lords, after the discussion in Committee it was quite clear that many of your Lordships felt strongly on this subject, and accordingly the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and myself went into the matter to see if we could meet the point. The real situation is exactly as we explained it then. The noble Marquess has sought to make a point by referring to Clause 14. He says there is consultation there, and asks why there should not be consultation under Clause 11 But the only consultation I see mentioned in Clause 14 is on page 12, line 4, and that is "consultation with the Commission." Obviously there is no reason at all why the Minister should not be requested on occasion, or required, to consult with the Commission, but the only point at issue here is a purely constitutional one—namely, whether the Government speak with one voice or not. It is assumed, and should always be assumed, that when a Cabinet Minister takes a certain action he is acting for the Government, and that due consultation has taken place within the Government before he has taken such action. I do not think I can really add to that point which we discussed at some length in Committee.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 17:

Livestock markets byelaws.

17.—(1) In relation to any premises in Great Britain which may lawfully be used for holding markets in respect of livestock, the Commission if they consider it desirable so to do for promoting efficiency or economy in the marketing of livestock may make byelaws—

  1. (a) for regulating the holding of auctions in respect of livestock on any such premises, for fixing or limiting the charges which may be made by persons in respect of sales of livestock by auction effected by them on any such premises;

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "holding," to insert "and conduct." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the National Farmers' Union, who made representations to the effect that in certain auction markets the method of bidding a price per cwt. for the animal was preferred to the method of bidding a price for the whole animal. Your Lordships will, I think, agree, that there are obvious advantages to those concerned if a by-law could determine that one or other method only of auctioning should apply to a particular sale, or to a sale in a particular district or to certain sales that are held at particular times. It is considered doubtful whether the expression "regulating the holding of auctions" gives the necessary powers and the Amendment makes it quite clear that by-laws under Clause 17 would be enabled to provide for this particular point.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, line 41, after ("holding") insert ("and conduct")—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, my next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, line 42, after ("premises") insert ("(and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision, for fixing or limiting the number of places at which such auctions may be separately held on the premises at the same time) and also").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 [Apportionment of liabilities incurred in connection with livestock markets orders by owners of market premises]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, the next also is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

page 18, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert: ("Where, by virtue of a livestock markets order, the owner of any premises incurs any liability—

  1. (a) to make any payment (whether to the Commission or to any other person) on account of the cost of making any alteration of those premises which has been required by the Commission to be made, or
  2. (b) to make contributions to the Commission in respect of those premises").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to the clause: (2) Where, under any livestock markets order, any sum is recoverable by the Commission from a person in respect of any such liability as aforesaid incurred by him as being the owner of any premises, and that person proves that he—

  1. (a) is receiving any rent of the premises merely as agent or trustee for some other person, and
  2. (b) has not, and since the date of the service on him of a demand for payment has not had, in his hands on behalf of that other person sufficient money to discharge the whole of the demand of the Commission,
his liability shall be limited to the total amount of the money which he has or has had in his hands as aforesaid, but the Commission may, if they are or would be debarred by the preceding provisions of this subsection from recovering the whole of the said sum from an agent or trustee, recover the whole or any unpaid balance thereof from the person on whose behalf the agent or trustee receives the rent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment implements an assurance that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and is an endeavour to embody in the proper place the purport of his Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for this Amendment, which entirely meets the point that I raised on the Committee stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:

Delegation to Commission of certain functions under Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts.

". The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the case may be, may by order delegate to the Commission all or any of the functions which are exercisable in relation to markets by the said Minister or Department under the following enactments, that is to say:—

and any such order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner as the original order."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this proposed new clause is, I think, self-explanatory. It enables certain functions at present exercised by the Minister and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland under the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887, to be delegated to the Livestock Commission. It is purely a matter of administrative convenience. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 20 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23:

Control of slaughtering in connection with experimental operation of central slaughter-houses.

23.—(1) If, with respect to any arrangements made for the provision of a slaughter-house on any premises in Great Britain, or for the alteration of a slaughter-house provided on any such premises, the Commission are of opinion, having regard to the sit nation of the premises and to the manner in which it is proposed under the arrangements that the slaughter-house should be designed, equipped and managed,—

  1. (a) that the carrying out of the said arrangements is likely to promote efficiency or economy in the slaughtering of livestock 978 and to secure that, in connection with the slaughtering of livestock at the slaughter-house, the carcases and meat of livestock slaughtered thereat are treated in a satisfactory manner and the other products of such slaughtering are utilised to the best advantage, and
  2. (b) that a scheme under this Part of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a slaughter-house scheme") is desirable in connection with the carrying out of the said arrangements,
the Commission may, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned, make and submit to the appropriate Minister such a slaughter-house scheme as appears to the Commission to be desirable in connection with the carrying out of the said arrangements; and the said Minister, if he is also of the opinion aforesaid, may, subject to the following provisions of this section, by order confirm the scheme.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "authorities" ["local authorities and other bodies"] to insert "agricultural co-operative societies." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is that the Commission set up by this Bill in framing schemes for central experimental slaughter-houses should take into consultation agricultural co-operative societies in addition to the local authorities and other bodies which are described as appearing to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned. An Amendment with a similar object was submitted to your Lordships on the Committee stage on behalf of the Central Landowners' Association, and I, for my part, regarding it as far the most important Amendment that was proposed to be moved to the Bill on that stage, gave it my support both by voice and vote. We were informed in reply by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that there were objections to accepting the Amendment in the form in which it was then submitted, and I myself am bound to confess that on consideration I did discover some objections to the acceptance of the Amendment in that form.

In the first place it was mandatory; it was, in effect, an instruction to the Commissioners that one of these three experimental slaughter-houses should be run on co-operative lines; and in the second place, what I am bound to say I did not realise until after consultation with my agricultural friends, as framed it might appear to refer not only to agricultural, or indeed mainly to agricultural co-operative societies, but also to what are sometimes described as industrial co-operative societies in the conduct of which there may be no agricultural interest involved whatever. For these reasons I have ventured to put down in an altered form this Amendment, which is purely permissive and in no sense mandatory, only providing that the Livestock Commission shall consult inter alios representative agricultural co-operative societies in order to test out what many of us have been longing to see tested out for the last thirty years, some agricultural factory business, a business intermediate between the producer and the consumer, on co-operative lines such as are employed in similar businesses in other parts of the world, notably in Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium and other European countries. Coming as I have recently from New Zealand I would venture to mention that most of the slaughter-houses in that country are conducted, with varying success but generally with success, on a co-operative basis for the benefit of the producer and the consumer alike. In passing, let me say how glad I was to hear the names that were mentioned as those of the members of this Livestock Commission. I am perfectly certain that those names will inspire confidence as being thoroughly representative of all interests concerned in different parts of the Kingdom. They are the names of men who, by their activities up to date, have undoubtedly earned the confidence both of the agricultural community and of the other interests involved.

What I want to put quite seriously to your Lordships is that we have for a considerable number of years had emphatically pointed out to us by leaders of the agricultural industry, and by successive Ministers of Agriculture, that the main source of agricultural welfare must be found in agricultural co-operation—in other words, in combinations between farmers themselves and not by means of tariffs, subsidies or other forms of protection. If we are really genuine in that belief, and if the attempts that have been made in days gone by to set up not merely the Agricultural Organisation Society, which unfortunately is no longer in existence, but a large number of agricultural co-operative societies in various parts of the country—if those attempts were really genuine and had conviction behind them, surely we ought to grasp this opportunity, the best opportunity which has yet come before Parliament, to put into a Government Bill by way, of experiment inter alia a co-operative scheme of animal slaughter. I may remind your Lordships that of all those commodities in which there is a wide "spread"—I believe that is the proper technical term—between producer and consumer, milk and its by-products and animal flesh and its by-products have always been put before the agricultural communities of different countries as the two particular commodities in which the spread is greatest, in which, in other words, the middle man is deemed to take an undue reward to the detriment of the producer and consumer alike. If that is so, I venture to think that we ought to take this opportunity of making one of these experimental slaughter-houses a co-operative slaughter-house, always assuming that we can find an agricultural co-operative organisation prepared to come forward and recommend such an institution to the Commissioners and participate in the running of it.

The noble Earl, in reply to an earlier Amendment of a much more drastic character, told us that there were words in the Bill which would enable the initiative to be taken by all persons who are interested in agricultural co-operation. I have searched the Bill most meticulously, and I find that the initiative lies only with the Commission. It is true that they may consult with other bodies not specified, possibly with those interested in agricultural co-operation and particularly with local authorities, but having so consulted the discretion and the initiative lie wholly with them. I feel strongly that this matter ought to be rectified by the comparatively harmless Amendment which I submit to your Lordships. If we are told in reply that we must look to some general words in some part of the Bill to get what we desire, I would venture to say that considering the principle involved we ought to have it in black and white that we are in favour of agricultural co-operation in this particular respect being given a full control within the four corners of the Bill. For these reasons I submit my Amendment for your Lordships' favourable consideration, bearing fully in mind that the agricultural community in the last resort have got to stand upon their own feet and by mutual co-operation and mutual effort work out their own salvation.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 2, after ("authorities") insert ("agricultural co-operative societies.")—(Viscount Bledisloe.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, as my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe reminded you, the principle of this Amendment was fully debated in Committee. A frontal attack was defeated by a very narrow majority and this very important Amendment which my noble friend has now moved is really no more than a modest attempt at salvage. There is no occasion for me to reinforce at any length the arguments used by my noble friend, but there is one argument which I fully expect to be used from the Front Bench and I should very much like to explode it before it is made. The argument has been constantly used that to specify particular persons who shall be consulted by inference excludes other bodies. It is an argument which has been used not once but hundreds of times. My answer to it is that in this clause are the words that the Commission many, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies"— and so on. If the words "local authorities" were not in the Bill, I should not be found supporting quite so wholeheartedly this Amendment. It is quite true that "other bodies" might include agricultural co-operative societies, but you cannot use the argument that it is impossible to specify co-operative societies without the danger of infringing the rights of other bodies if you leave in the words "local authorities." You spoil the argument before you begin.

The fear on the part of agricultural co-operative societies is that local authorities are going to have a prior opportunity of proffering themselves as suitable persons for starting one or all of these experimental slaughter-houses unless agricultural co-operative societies are given a definite opportunity and right to be consulted. It does not mean in the least that they are necessarily going to take up the experiment, but that they must be given the opportunity of being consulted. To include the words "local authorities" suggests by inference that they will be given pre-emption. I heartily support all that has fallen from my noble friend.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hastings has said exactly what I would like to have said myself. This Amendment really is one which should be considered very favourably and I hope that the Government will give it every consideration. The noble Viscount who moved it put the case extremely well and in the way we should expect him to put it. The co-operative principle is one we must uphold. I have always been a great advocate of the co-operative principle in agriculture and here is a chance which I think should not be missed. I hope very much that His Majesty's Government will seriously consider the value of an Amendment of this character.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, if I may be permitted to say so, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has served a very useful purpose in moving this Amendment at this later stage in the proceedings on this Bill. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the underlying principle, which was fully discussed in Committee, is of the utmost importance in that the desire of all those who have been or who are connected with agriculture is that there should be a greater degree of co-operation in the farming community and a lessening of that individual spirit which has perhaps in the past not been very greatly in favour of the agricultural industry as a whole. I would wish to assure the noble Viscount in the first instance that the Government appreciate this general object to which the noble Viscount has referred in moving his Amendment. At the same time, I would wish to ensure that the benefit of the three experimental schemes shall reach the producer. That is the intention as the Bill is at present drafted.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has referred to the fact that the wording of the Bill as at present framed has by inference put greater emphasis upon local authorities undertaking the experiments in central slaughtering. I quite recognise that the argument to which he referred is commonly used in debates on Bills, and in my short experience I have heard it brought forward on many occasions. In this instance, however, the local authorities, even if it was specifically intended that they should not for one reason or another be utilised for the experiment of central slaughtering, would still have to come into the Bill. That is because the local authority, as the public body responsible for any area in which a central slaughter-house scheme might be proposed, is responsible as the rating authority and would have to be consulted in that capacity. The second reason is that it would have to be consulted as the authority responsible for the health provisions which are closely connected with any slaughtering undertaking and which would naturally have to conform to the requirements laid down by the Ministry of Health. Therefore, it is not intended by the present wording of the Bill that particular emphasis should be given to local authorities as the authorities most suitable for experimenting with these schemes.

I would prefer to draw your Lordships' attention to the words "any other bodies." By that wording I hope your Lordships will agree that the door is left open as wide as possible for any persons to submit schemes to the Livestock Commission for the inauguration of a slaughtering experiment in any given area. It is felt that if a precedent were to be created by giving producer co-operative organisations specific mention in this Bill, it might give opportunity for other bodies—perhaps the consumer co-operative organisations—to make a similar request. The number of persons wishing to submit a scheme to the Livestock Commission for approval might be unending. Therefore, without being at all in conflict with the principle upon which I think we are unanimously agreed, but with a view to making the slaughtering provisions as enabling and as wide as possible, I would respectfully ask the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, not to press his Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

My Lords, when I brought forward the original Amendment to the Bill the noble Earl said to me in effect—very justly, I must admit—"Suppose that no co-operative agricultural society were prepared to take up the scheme: that would limit the scope and therefore there would only be two schemes instead of three." I think that was a fair argument, although I must confess that I should not have minded in the least if there had been only two! That, however, no longer applies, and all my noble friend wishes to ensure is that one or more of these agricultural co-operative societies should be consulted before the three schemes are decided. I rather gathered that it was the intention of the noble Earl to do so, but I am not quite clear on that. Perhaps he will tell me whether it is so or not. If he would say that it is the intention to consult one or more of them, although he is not inclined to put it in the Bill, I should be satisfied.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will not press the Amendment, because I think it is quite unnecessary. This clause is entirely permissive. It lays down that if the Commission are of opinion that a scheme is desirable, the Commission may, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned, make and submit a scheme. Surely, as my noble friend Lord Feversham has said, an agricultural co-operative society is a body, and the more bodies you include in a Bill the more likely are other bodies to be excluded. I therefore hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

LCRD RAGLAN

My Lords, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that the local authorities had to be consulted because they were rating authorities and because they were sanitary authorities. That may be an excellent reason for consulting them, but it is not the reason giver in the Bill. The clause says: such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned. Therefore the reason, according to the Bill, is that they are to be consulted because they are "representative of interests concerned," and not because they are rating and sanitary authorities.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, I would wish most emphatically to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that in practice any representations made by a co-operative society of producers to the Livestock Commission either for or against a slaughtering scheme in any given area would have most serious consideration, as indeed would representations made by any persons, whether public or private. In regard to the last point that was raised, I think that the emphasis is upon "such other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned." It is these very words which will cover the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, wishes by his Amendment to have specifically mentioned.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I should like to acknowledge the extreme courtesy of the noble Earl, both towards myself and in his treatment of my Amendment. I hope sincerely that he and the Minister will forgive me if I say quite frankly that I am not convinced by the arguments that he has adduced and that this is to me a matter in which a vital principle is involved. Bearing in mind what is happening and what has been found practicable in other countries; and bearing in mind also not merely the constitution of the Livestock Advisory Committee, which will come to be consulted, but also the provision that the Commission will consult only such bodies as will appear to the Commission to be representative of the interests concerned, I am afraid I do not see my way to withdraw the Amendment, although I fully admit the kindly response which the noble Earl has given to it.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I do not want to continue the discussion too

long, but I will just emphasise to the noble Viscount, before he goes to the Division, one point which he missed. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill gave a definite assurance that the Commission would not only be prepared to consult any co-operative society that was in existence, but that they would go farther than that and also consider any application from any such society with the greatest favour and sympathy.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed the House has mentioned something which is not in the Bill, and which, so far as I can see, does not come even within the four corners of the Bill. I am sure I accept most gladly any sympathetic assurance coming from the Minister of Agriculture, but I am bound to say that the assurance given does not affect the discretion of the bodies set up to operate the Bill. There are two bodies for operating the Bill, one the Livestock Commission and the other the Livestock Advisory Committee, and it rests with them, after consulting such other bodies as they think fit, to set up these slaughter-houses. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture and his expressed sympathy, which I greatly value, do not come into consideration at all.

On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Bledisloe, V. [Teller.] Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Buckmaster, V. Gainford, L.
Bathurst, E. Falmouth, V. Greville, L.
Denbigh, E. Tredegar, V. Hastings, L.
Grey, E. Lawrence, L.
Lichfield, E. Annaly, L. Leconfield, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Carrington, L. Mancroft, L.
Peel, E. Cautley, L. Middleton, L.
Radnor, E. Cranworth, L. Raglan, L.
Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.] Daryngton, L. St. Levan, L.
Wicklow, E. Digby, L. Strabolgi, L.
Strickland, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.) Iveagh, E. Amulree, L.
Lindsay, E. Askwith, L.
Halifax, V. (L. President.) Lucan, E. (Teller.] Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Malmesbury, E.
De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Midleton, E. Cromwell, L.
Munster, E. Doverdale, L.
Onslow, E. Dunleath, L.
Portland, D. Plymouth, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Powis, E. Elton, L.
Zetland, M. Stanhope, E. Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)
Forester, L.
Feversham, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage) [Teller.]
Fitzwilliam, E. Bertie of Thame, V. Holden, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Goschen, V. Redesdale, L.
Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 24 [Matters for which provision may be made by slaughter-house schemes]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, my Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 16, after ("payment") insert ("or an allowance of an amount").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved to insert after paragraph (l) in subsection (1): Every slaughter-house scheme made under this Part of this Act which enables a local authority or joint Board to provide and carry on such a slaughter-house as is deemed by virtue of the scheme to be the central slaughter-house for the purpose of the scheme shall provide that any excess of revenue over expenditure in respect of any year derived from the carrying on of the central slaughter-house shall be applied to the reduction of the charges which may be made in the next succeeding year in respect of services performed and the use of facilities provided at or in connection with the central slaughter-house.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in exactly the same form as it appeared on the Paper in the Committee stage, and it would not have occurred to me to put it down again if it had not been for the rather curious circumstances in which it was passed over on the last occasion. Those circumstances can best be described by a short reference to something said by the Lord Privy Seal on that occasion. When this matter was being raised, he said: At the same time I am sure the Government will admit that there is a point here as to whether local authorities should be allowed to make profits out of the farmers. The Government cannot issue instructions of that character to the local authorities, but I see no reason at all why we should not consider at the very least some instruction to the Livestock Commission… The Lord Privy Seal has been far too long in an official position to commit himself so deeply if there was no means of escape, and I am not going to suggest that he did commit himself very deeply there, but what he did was to hold out sufficient hope to those who moved the Amendment in Committee to induce them not to press it to a Division, in the expectation that something further might be said at this stage. I move the Amendment formally, knowing that I should not in the ordinary way be entitled to do so, in order to give the noble Earl the opportunity of making any observations he may wish to make on the matter.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is perfectly right. I did make that remark on the Committee stage, because I hoped that on looking into the matter it might be possible to meet the noble Lord. I was really in complete agreement with him as to what he wanted to bring about, but I did put in certain qualifying words because there seemed to be a relevant qualification, and that is that it is very difficult and unusual in legislation for the Government to dictate to local authorities on a point such as this, when; we are actually asking local authorities to undertake certain financial risks. We all of us know that in asking them to take up these experimental slaughter-houses we may certainly be asking them to do something that will not be profitable, and it may well leave them with a balance on the wrong side. But it the same time they would do it for other reasons.

If we turn to other legislation on this sort of subject we see that in electricity legislation there is a very strong bias in favour of any profits or any surplus made on electricity being applied in the following priority: (1), a reduction of charges; (2), reduction of capital moneys borrowed; (3), for new works; (4), for relief of rates. I think we want to keep this experimental scheme as practical as possible. I can give the noble Lord a very definite assurance that the Minister and the Commission in considering these schemes will keep that order of priority very strongly in mind, and I go further than that. The noble Lord would not ask me so far ahead to commit the Government, but in the consideration of any long-term policy which might be based on the result of these experiments the Minister would consider whether some such instruction might not be put in the new Bill as is contained in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926. I think the noble Lord will see from that that there is no disagreement at all between us, and that the Minister is prepared to give him an assurance on this point.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I am quite prepared to accept the noble Earl's answer. I recognise the difficulty, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26:

Power of local authorities to provide and carry on slaughter-houses.

26.—(1) A slaughter-house scheme may enable any local authority specified in the scheme (if and so far as that local authority is not enabled by virtue of any Act other than this Act so to do)— (a) to provide and carry on (whether within or outside the area of the authority) such a slaughter-house as is to be deemed by virtue of the scheme to be the central slaughter-house for the purposes of the scheme, and for that purpose to acquire by agreement any land or interest in land and to borrow money:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "is" ["local authority is"] and insert "are". The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) to leave out "and carry on." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the next two Amendments are designed to make it clear that where a local authority provides a central slaughter-house, the slaughter-house may be carried on by some person or body other than the local authority, for example a company working on public utility or co-operative lines. This was always intended, and the Amendments are designed to remove any doubt as to the power of the local authority to lease the premises.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 14, leave out ("and carry on").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 25, line 18, leave out ("that purpose") and insert ("the purpose of providing such a slaughter-house")

Page 25, line 20 at end insert— ("(b) to carry on, or to make arrangements (whether by letting the premises or otherwise) whereby some other person is enabled to carry on, any such slaughter- house as aforesaid provided by the local authority.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 31:

Service schemes.

31.—(1) On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons concerned with one or more of the following activities, that is to say, the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock and the preparation for sale, and the marketing, treatment and use, of products of the slaughtering of livestock, the Commission, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and any other bodies appearing to the Commission to represent the interests of the said class or classes of persons, may make and submit to the appropriate Minister a scheme under this part of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a service scheme") for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say:— (vi) the improvement of breeding of livestock;

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1) to leave out paragraph (vi). The noble Lord said: My Lords, my excuse for bringing forward the same Amendment that I moved in Committee is that those of your Lordships who were here will remember that it was only a momentary and rather foolish inattention on my part which prevented me from dividing the House on that occasion, and further that this particular paragraph is one which is causing the very greatest apprehension in the minds of stock breeders. I think most of your Lordships will agree that much of this Bill is very difficult to understand. Indeed, we have spent a good deal of time during the Committee stage in having it explained that various parts of it meant something entirely different from what they appear to mean, and of all the parts of the Bill I think this is the most difficult to understand, and I should not dream myself of interpreting this part. But most fortunately, we have an authoritative interpreter of this particular clause. I refer to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and I think we may surely trust implicitly what he says, because not only is he a spokesman on behalf of the Government, but he was also for several years Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, and, if he will pardon my saying so, I think he was about the best one I remember. Therefore I think his explanation is undoubtedly the right one.

He says that this particular paragraph of which I move the omission was put in for a very simple purpose. That was that where a small number of poor farmers desired to improve their livestock by getting a new bull, under this paragraph they would be able to do so. He went further than that, because he dotted the i's and crossed the t's by saying the number of people who would do so. He said there would, he supposed, be six or eight. I would like your Lordships very carefully to consider the process that the noble Earl envisaged. There are six small farmers living in a parish called, we will say, Little Pigley. It must be a small parish, because the six farmers are substantially representative of the livestock industry in it. But they are not the only farmers in that village. There are three others, of whom more anon. These six farmers are not satisfied with the bull or bulls they use, although those bulls have been duly licensed by the licensing authority. But they want a better bull, so they put their heads together, and they set up a service scheme—the Little Pigley Service Scheme, which is encouraged by the responsible authorities. I do not know who the responsible authorities are, because I cannot find them in the Bill, but perhaps they are the parish council, perhaps the county council. But they encourage these six farmers, who set up a service scheme, and the Commission, it is anticipated, agree to it. They say: "Certainly, your bull or bulls are very bad. You shall have a much better bull, which will cost roughly, with the expenses of this scheme, £100."

Now comes the question of how the £100 is to be provided. It does not, I think, come out of the £5,000,000. I should object strongly if it did. It does not come out of the public purse or the rates. Where does it come from? What is the source of this extra money? Clearly these six farmers want extra money, because if they had the money already, they could co-operate together and buy, without the trouble of having the service scheme. There must be some extra money. Where is it? It is quite clear where it is. It is in the hands of these three other farmers, who have a perfectly good bull which they like. They are the people who are to find this extra money. It seems rather absurd. If your Lordships look at paragraph (d) in subsection (2) of this clause, you will find that I am right in that, and if you doubt my interpretation I would ask your Lordships to note what the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, said: If there is any preponderance of any class of persons in favour of a scheme, then the minority should contribute towards the expense of that scheme. It is therefore perfectly clear that these three farmers who have bulls which they like have got to provide the money to supply another bull for these six people.

I do not know what your Lordships thick about it, but, frankly, I am reminded of the words of the late Lord Snowden when he described another scheme as "Communism run mad." It seems to me a most amazing proposition, and I should be extremely glad to hear further with regard to it. I do not, myself, think the noble Earl is quite right in his anticipations. After all, it is what is in the Bill, not what is the intention of the Government, that really counts. I believe that far larger bodies that six or eight farmers will use this particular Part of the Bill. I believe that large bodies of men who control a considerable herd of cattle, probably of one breed, and who want to get out of a large area all those breeds which do not go with their own, will in the first place force these people, under another Part of the Bill, to advertise their own breed, as they can quite well under this Part, and force them to have no other breed than they one they prefer—call it Friesians, or whatever it is.

I ask your Lordships seriously to consider this. It seems to me a very dangerous clause to leave in, to put it mildly. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, himself admitted that the breeding of livestock in this country was, as far as pedigree stock was concerned, a thing to be admired. Pedigree stock are almost the only agricultural article we export. He went on to say that there is some very bad stock in this country, but I would remind the noble Earl that it is not so long since he piloted through this House a much better Bill than this. That was the Bill for the elimination of scrub bulls. That particular Act is already taking effect. The cattle of this country are improving, and if that Act is tightened up as time goes on I believe the herds which he rightly says are bad will be re- moved and there will be no longer that reproach. I ask your Lordships to say, whether it be, as the noble Earl thinks, in a thousand Little Pigleys or in a number of greater areas, that there shall be no monkeying with the breeding of livestock whatever, but that it should go on being improved in the way it is being improved row, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 31, leave out paragraph (vi).—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, in his remarks in support of this Amendment, has made me think that my exposition of this Part of the Bill during the last stage was far from clear. That will necessitate my explaining at some little Length the proposals which are embodied in Part VI if I am to make them clear to the noble Lord. Before a service scheme under Part VI can come into operation it must have been proposed by some body substantially representative of the interests of one of the classes of persons named in Clause 31 (1). The Commission cannot of its own initiative promote any service scheme. Before submitting a service scheme to the Minister the Commission must consult the Livestock Advisory Committee and other representative bodies, and the Fifth Schedule provides that the scheme must be published and opportunities afforded to interested persons to lodge objections with the Minister. Any objections have to be considered by the Minister; if necessary, an inquiry is held and modifications can be made. In particular, the Minister will be under an obligation to consult those representing the interests of pedigree breeders before confirming any service scheme under paragraph (vi) if the Amendments in my name next on the Order Paper are accepted.

There is no question whatever of a service scheme of any nature being imposed on the industry, nor is there any question of a section of the industry being enabled to ask the Commission to frame a scheme with which they themselves are not primarily concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, in his remarks led the House to understand that these service schemes will apply only to bulls and cattle. They apply equally to sheep and to pigs. I would not wish to have given the impression on the pre- vious stage of the Bill that the service scheme is essentially for small groups of farmers in any locality. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it may be found that any class of persons on the producing side of the industry can formulate a scheme on a national basis for the improvement of one particular type of stock. Let me take an example. Producers, say, of Hereford cattle could not ask for a service scheme to be framed which would apply to, and be binding on, producers of, say, Red Polls. Furthermore, the particular class of persons represented by the ownership of pedigree herds and breeding societies would not necessarily be affected by a scheme designed to further improvements in the breeding of commercial livestock.

I hope I did not give a wrong impression to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, when on the previous occasion I said that all persons, whether they desired it or not, if they came within a certain class, would have the sanction of a levy imposed on them. That would apply in certain service schemes. It would apply in the case of the producers and butchers combining for an insurance scheme. It would apply in the case of auctioneers producing a service scheme for the interests of their profession. But in the case of paragraph (vi), which is the substance of this Amendment, no class of producer would be liable to contribute provided he had, under Clause 33, lodged his objections to registration, and provided he were not a producer of the breed of cattle for which the service scheme was brought into operation.

The noble Lord will see that Clause 33 relates to the registration of contributors under service schemes, and in the middle of that clause he will find: that the persons liable to make such contributions, or any class of such persons, shall be registered under, and in accordance with, the scheme. Therefore, to follow the noble Lord's analogy, if there are a number of producers in Somerset that are breeding Red Polls and there are a number of other producers who are not interested in the breeding or improvement of the breed of Red Polls in that area but are interested in another breed, say Shorthorns, and they, under Clause 33, make representations not wishing to be within the scheme, it would be for the Commission, with the approval of the Minister and following the procedure elaborated in the Fifth Schedule, to effect that they would not be registered for that scheme.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am sorry to interrupt, but may I ask the noble Earl what are the words under Clause 33 under which a person need not be registered unless he likes. I cannot find them.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The person who does not wish to be within the scheme can, under Clause 33, which deals with the registration of contributors under service schemes, make representations to the authorised body not to be included, and it will be decided in the formulation of the scheme whether or not those persons are included. There is no question of enabling an authorised body under a service scheme dealing with the breeding of livestock to levy, in respect of any facilities provided, on producers who do not desire to make use of such facilities. The matters for which the schemes could be of particular benefit are, for example, protection for the marks used by breeding societies in connection with the registration of cattle entered in the herd books and enabling a co-operative system of inspection to be developed; the marking of the progeny of high-class bulls after the manner of the Welsh Dragon Scheme; an extension of the scheme of marking calves by milk recording societies; the collection and disposal to rearers of calves obtained in dairy herds by the use of premium bulls of beef and dual-purpose breeds; and pig recording and litter testing. There would also be opportunity for co-operative purchase and management of high-class bulls, boars and rams; but it is not the intention to withdraw any financial assistance which is given under the Ministry's Scheme for the Improvement of Livestock. These provisions would be additional to the Ministry's schemes, with which the noble Lord is familiar.

I hope that by this lengthy explanation I have dispersed in the mind of the noble Lord certain fears that he held as to the imposition of a scheme upon producers who were not willing to have it. The Amendments that are tabled in my name, which come next on the Order Paper, are designed to meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, supported by Lord Hastings, that particular reference should be made to the need of consultation with societies dealing with pedigree stock. It is proposed to omit the words "breeding of" in order to meet the noble Lords, and to make it more clear that the purpose of a scheme under paragraph (vi) is to improve the standard of the commercial beast coming on to the ordinary market. I feel strongly that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, are groundless, because pedigree societies will, I think, considerably benefit by certain proposals that may be adopted under this scheme, and the pedigree pure stock which, as the noble Lord knows, is world-renowned can level up the ordinary type of commercial beast that comes before the market. There is room for that to be done. Although our pedigree stock is of a very high order, I think your Lordships would generally be of opinion that there is still room for improvement. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will see his way not to press the Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the noble Earl has adopted a somewhat new line in dealing with these matters. Except for a relatively few remarks, he has not attempted to defend the insertion of the words to which my noble friend Lord Cranworth objects, but he has been at great pains to show how under Clause 33 persons who, like Lord Cranworth and myself, object to the words that we are endeavouring to delete can escape the consequences of those words, and he read a categorical statement in which he endeavoured to make it clear to us that under the Bill it was possible for persons who did not wish to be registered to avoid registration. That is an extremely important statement, and one that largely interests anybody intending to take an active interest in this matter. I must direct the attention of the House to Clause 33 and invite the reading of that chaise. Really there is nothing whatever in that clause to justify a syllable of the statement read out by the noble Earl—not a word of the statement. No doubt the statement was placed in his hand by an official person, but it is wholly inaccurate from start to finish and has no foundation in fact. I must ask the noble Earl, when he has read the clause, to withdraw what he has said, because it is not substantiated by a reading of the clause.

I would come back to the main argument which was that the words which are inserted in Clause 31 are not words which ought to remain. The grave risks which may attend the breeding of pedigree stock by reason of the interference of persons and bodies who are not qualified so to interfere are too grave to run. That is really what it comes to. I have not the least doubt that the intentions of the Government, so far as the improvement of commercial stock is concerned, are excellent. Let them devise words which will enable the Minister of Agriculture, if you like, or the Livestock Commission if you prefer, to improve the quality of our commercial stock, but you must insert in this Bill words which will make it absolutely certain that breeders of pedigree stock are not to be liable to any kind of pettifogging interference. If you have that you will really ruin the one section of agricultural activity which now meets general appreciation throughout the world, because you will undermine the confidence on which alone that type of industry subsists. The noble Earl has an Amendment on the Paper proposing to eliminate the words "breeding of" which would bring the matter down to the improvement of livestock. It is perfectly true that you can improve livestock, that you can feed it or starve it, but how you can improve it permanently without touching the breeding of it I am at a loss to understand. I do not think that leaving out the words "breeding of" will affect the situation in the smallest degree. Coming back to the main argument, I think the House can be in no kind of doubt that the risks which it is proposed to run are greater than they ought to be, and therefore I hope your Lordships will support the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I am bound to say I am very much puzzled, both by the statement made by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and as to the scope of his Amendment. My noble friend Lord Hastings has very properly pointed out that the most effective way of improving livestock is to see to the proper breeding of that livestock. I am quite sure that the elimination of the words "breeding of" is not going to set our minds at ease as to the position of pedigree breeders. I venture to suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that what is really required is some such wording as "encouragement of the breed- ing of the right type of livestock." Magnificent pedigree animals are seen at shows, but they do not represent the average standard of livestock in the country. When it comes to suitability for certain purposes—for instance, pigs to meet the public demand—the animals produced are not such as to meet the requirements of bacon factories. We cannot get away from that fact, and that is why Denmark and other countries flood our markets with bacon. There is plenty of scope for a scheme for the encouragement of the breeding of the right type of livestock. I entirely fail to understand how the elimination of the words "breeding of" is going to meet the objections put forward.

LORD CROMWELL

My Lords, I was entirely satisfied with the explanation given us by the noble Earl who introduced this Bill until it was pointed out to me that Clause 33 does not endorse the explanation given. It appears to me that noble Lords, if that is true, have no alternative but to support the Amendment.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to amplify what I said with regard to Clause 33 which affects registration. When a scheme is formulated one of its provisions will be for the registration of those meaning to participate. Those persons who object to the scheme can submit their objections to the proposal according to the Schedule. If, in the formulation of the scheme, there is no suggestion for registration, which there may well not be, the persons who wish to; submit objections can suggest that there should be registration, and it will then be for the authorised body to decide, in consultation with the persons concerned, what will be in the best interests of the preponderating number. Clause 33 only provides the machinery by which the scheme can be formulated. It is perfectly correct that it does not completely exonerate any persons from being brought within the scheme, but it does provide the machinery whereby persons can suggest that the scheme is incomplete and insufficient because there is no registration. If there is registration, then they have the right to object to the proposal on the ground that they, not being concerned with the production of the particular breed for which the scheme is inaugurated, should be exempt from registration. Therefore, I think I am correct in saying that there is provision whereby, under Clause 33, representations can be made which will change a scheme in the interests of the persons who do not approve of it.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House, but as permission was given to the noble Earl I hope it will not be withheld from me. His explanation is that under Clause 33 provision exists to enable persons not to be registered, but if it is not so it will be found in a certain Schedule, to which we have not been specifically referred. I think we ought to have chapter and verse for this. We have not been told the particular Schedule to which we can make reference. It is open, of course, to the Government to say no more, but merely to resist the Amendment. In that case, we must go to a Division.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that to those who deal with agricultural matters and therefore have somewhat bucolic minds—I am including myself—the drafting of the Bill in this matter is a little difficult. But really I think the point is quite clear. First, we have to get the whole background of this Part of the Bill, and that background is supplied in the first four lines of page 29. I think we have rather come to look at this Part of the Bill as though it dealt with some scheme that was going to be imposed by the Government or by the Commission. Those first words are: On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests"— and so on. Therefore we start off from that point: that no scheme whatsoever can be initiated unless a very large proportion of the producers, those who are substantially representative of the industry, have asked for a scheme.

Now we come to the particular difficulty in Clause 33. As I see it, the starting-point of this discussion was the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that certain members of the industry were going to be compelled to make contributions towards a scheme for the improvement of the breeding of livestock, which he told me was already be- ing carried on very well by the breeders who were going to gain no return from the scheme. I think the answer is to be fund in page 30, line 23, paragraph (d). Perhaps I might just read the words: a service scheme may make provision for securing that the expenses lawfully incurred by the authorised body in connection with the operation of the scheme shall be defrayed by means of contributions to be made to that body by the class or the several classes, as the case may be, of persons whose interests are … to be represented by the members of the said body. Those who should be represented by the members of the said body are those who desire the scheme. Then you get these words: for the apportionment of the amount required to defray such expenses between the classes of persons … who are liable to contribute. That brings us to the point the noble Lord made at the beginning of his remarks on this clause, that there were two types of schemes, one of which would be a scheme undertaken by one of these service bodies on behalf of all the contributors. I think the noble Lord mentioned a scheme for the advertising of a breed, and so on. For that purpose, if your Lordships will look at paragraph (d) you will see that under the implication of the paragraph everyone in the industry is ping to have to make a contribution. I should have thought that was perfectly clear, because that is a general service to the whole of the breed for which everyone should pay a fair share. At the present moment that sort of work cannot be done, and why? Because if you try to get the producers of a given breed to take action you will probably find that a large number of public-spirited people are prepared to put up the money and the rest will merely sit back and take the benefit of what is being done for everyone.

LORD CRANWORTH

Surely all societies pay per head, by their subscriptions?

EARL DE LA WARR

I think I made the mistake of talking about a great society, when I ought to have spoken in terms of the people in a geographical area. We know that these societies are actually doing their work satisfactorily and need not come into the scheme. But there are other schemes—I think the noble Lord has already mentioned them—such as schemes for pig-recording and litter-testing, schemes from which only those benefit to whom particular services are given. There is provision in paragraph (d) for the fair apportionment of the amount required to defray the expenses as between different classes. Or the scheme might be one of the kind I mentioned the other day, for the co-operative purchase and encouragement of good sires, bulls and so on. There are quite a number of those schemes, from which only a limited number in an area would benefit, and under paragraph (d) I think it is perfectly clear that provision is made for those who are running the scheme itself; not for the Commission, but for those who are running the scheme. It is surely very much better for them actually to make their own apportionment. I have tried to put before your Lordships the scheme as I see it. That is a perfectly clear explanation to me, and I hope it is clear to the noble Lord.

LORD CRANWORTH

My Lords, I thank both the noble Earls very much indeed for the explanations they have given, and I can only say that if the two noble Earls were going in perpetuity to be the people who interpret this Bill, I should be quite satisfied. But even they do not go on, I fear, for ever, and this Bill puts a weapon into the hands of other people. I am afraid I am not satisfied that the words really give that security which I desire to see, and I am afraid I must press my Amendment.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, might I suggest, without arguing about these abstruse references to other paragraphs in the Bill, that the Government should accept this Amendment? They have not said a word against the principle of the Amendment; in fact they agree with it. They have only tried to prove that its intention is already accommodated in the Bill in various places where it is not mentioned. If a case came up there would be any amount of trouble and probably a lawsuit. The Government have not objected to the principle of this Amendment; they have only put a flat denial to it and wish to defeat it by the weight of their vote. I ask the noble Earl if he cannot see his way to accept it.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)

My Lords, I have not had the privilege of hearing all the discussion that has passed on this Amendment and I am therefore only able to say a word on purely general lines. I understand that there is no great difference of opinion between the objects that my noble friends behind me and my noble friends beside me wish to achieve. It has occurred to me in the few minutes that I have been able to be in the House, listening to the debate, that if our ends are in fact the same, it is perhaps not the most convenient way of bringing about an agreed end to start by emphasising our differences through the Division Lobbies. The suggestion I want to make to my noble friends, if they would think it a fair one, is this. It is quite evident that there is considerable feeling, be it ill-founded or well-founded, in their minds as to what the Bill at present says. It is equally clear that those who speak for the Government are just as convinced that the fears of the other noble Lords are without foundation. If the noble Lords felt able to withdraw their Amendment, my noble friend would also hold over the Amendments which lie has put down to deal with this question. Then we should have another look at the question between now and the Third Reading and give my noble friends the undertaking that we will either endeavour to meet them on the Third Reading or will give them the opportunity of bringing the matter up again at that stage.

LORD CRANWORTH

I beg to thank the Leader of the House very much for his suggestion. As far as I am concerned and I think my noble friend behind me would agree, we accept his suggestion with the utmost gratitude.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, this Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 7, leave out ("adaptions") and insert ("adaptations").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, I am afraid the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has missed an opportunity for once!

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47 [Compensation to local authorities' servants]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, to this clause there are two Amendments which are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 41, line 19, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")

Page 41, line 33, leave out ("subsection'') and insert ("section").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 57 [Interpretation]:

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert: 'Sales of livestock' means sales effected by any person whose business it is to effect, on behalf of others, sales of livestock, whether by public auction, by tender, or by private treaty; and". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is very much on the same lines as the Amendment I moved on the Committee stage, and it is designed to bring within the scope of the Bill those people who use markets other than auctioneers. I have restricted the wording of this Amendment as compared with what I moved on the Committee stage. My object has been to try to include only those people who obtain their livelihood by the sales of stock on commission, and to exclude such people as dealers who buy stock outright in the market with a view of re-selling or keeping them for improvement. I appreciate very much the arguments which were used on the Committee stage by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, as to the difficulty of including these people within the scope of the Bill, because the primary object of including them is that they should first of all be subject to paying the same charges, and so on, as auctioneers, and equally should be capable of compensation for loss of trade in the same way as auctioneers.

While that may be the primary object of the Amendment, there is, I think, another aspect to it. I think it is highly desirable from the livestock producers' point of view that so far as possible the sale of livestock in a market should be through open auction, and not by private treaty sale, where nobody except the two parties concerned has any knowledge of what is going on and what are the charges made by the person effecting the sale. I think under the livestock market schemes it will be in the hands of the promoters of the scheme to fix the charges which auctioneers can charge, but if there is an increase in private treaty sales on commission that may very well defeat the whole object of the scheme. I have very little more to say, but I am informed that in Scotland it is not only the commission agents who do these private treaty sales, but that the auctioneers themselves do a great deal of them. I am informed by the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland that their members sold 19.2 per cent. of the fat stock sold not through open auction but by private treaty. I hope that the noble Earl will consent to the inclusion of this definition of what sales are, so that these people may be brought within the scope of the Bill.

Amendment moved—

Page 47, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert— ("'Sales of livestock' means sales effected by any person whose business it is to effect, on behalf of others, sales of livestock, whether by public auction, by tender, or by private treaty; and")—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, I understand that this Amendment particularly affects the auctioneers societies in Scotland, and the noble Earl as quoted the figure of 19 per cent. as the proportion of stock sold other than by auction. I have been given another figure, which shows that the livestock sold otherwise than by auction in Scotland is only 6 per cent.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I think the noble Earl misunderstood me. I said the total of fat cattle sold. Of the total livestock sold otherwise than by auction the figure is 6 per cent.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I think the chief objection to the Amendment is that it would be impossible to find an equitable basis for assessing compensation to this category of private treaty dealers whom the noble Earl wishes to incorporate. A person who makes a practice of selling by private treaty in a market that was closed could transfer his business without appreciable loss or damage to any other market that was left open in the area. He is not bound to his place of business in the same way as an auctioneer is bound to his place of business. It would also, I think, be very difficult, if not impracticable, to know from whom to collect the contributions towards compensation, as there might not be any other markets in the area covered by the order at which private treaty selling took place. In any case the difficulty of assessing contributions in respect of such individuals would be insuperable, and on that ground alone I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I quite appreciate the difficulty of doing it; but I do hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill realises the possibility that through these livestock market schemes you may be driving people more and more to effect private sales on commission, as opposed to auctions, and so go a long way to defeat the purpose of the livestock market schemes. In principle I think it is a very important point. I do not personally mind in the least about the question of compensation, or otherwise, but in view of the arguments of the noble Earl I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords mine is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 33, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the Commission").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, the Amendment in my name is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 14, after ("to") insert ("fix and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 51, line 34, leave out ("determine'') and insert ("determines")

Page 51, line 41, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.