§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Feversham).
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
473§ Clause 1:
§ Constitution and general junctions of Livestock Commission.
§ (2) The Commission shall consist of a chairman and not more than eight other members appointed by the Ministers.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "eight" and insert "five." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the numbers of the Livestock Commission. The Livestock Commission are, I think, the most important of the bodies which have to deal with this Bill, and it is desirable that the conduct of their work should be economical, quick and efficient. It should be economical in order to deserve the money for the industry; and it is obviously desirable that it should be quick and that it should be simple, because producers have had too many computations forced into their life lately. The first thing I would suggest is that if this were a company or undertaking of that sort it is extremely probable that the board which managed it would not exceed five in number, because five or six is found to be the number which usually conducts such businesses most efficiently.
§ The noble Earl in charge of the Bill made what I thought was a most extraordinary remark when on the Second Reading he answered me on this point. He said it was desirable to have eight people on the Commission because there is such a lot of work to do. But it is just because I want to get the work done efficiently and quickly that I want to limit the number. The members of the Milk Reorganisation Commission, who have just as much work to do, after sitting for the best part of a year, came to the conclusion that five was the best number. As the Bill stands, the Commission have to be drawn in effect entirely from your Lordships' House, your Lordships being really the only people who, for practical purposes, are not capable of being elected to His Majesty's House of Commons. I hope to see that provision altered at a later date. But I do think that if this measure is to be a success, these supermen—who will not be so easy to find—should be limited in numbers. I have been told on three or four occasions that this Bill is mainly a producer's Bill and its main object is 474 to help the producer, so long as it does not hurt the interests of other people, and it is no part of the object of the Bill to provide a chance for people, however worthy.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("eight") and insert ("five").—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM)When the noble Lord referred to the personnel of the Livestock Commission in the course of the Second Reading, I replied to the effect that the proposed Commission would have more extensive duties than the Cattle Committee, for not only would it have to administer the permanent subsidy scheme under Part II but it would also be responsible for the increased activities under Part IV of the Bill—the improvement of markets—under Part V, with regard to slaughterhouse schemes and also, under Part VI, with regard to service schemes. The object of that remark which the noble Lord has thought fit to describe as "extraordinary," was to point out that in the initial stages of working the procedure it may be found necessary for the Commission to form sub-committees, and it is thought that five Commissioners would be insufficient for the purpose. The figure of eight members besides the Chairman is a maximum, and if, at a later date, when the procedure is working smoothly, it is thought necessary to reduce that number, there is provision made for that purpose already in the Bill.
§ LORD HASTINGSA point omitted from his argument by Lord Cranworth is one that has a substantial bearing on the matter, and it is that of salaries. The salaries of these eight Commissioners have to come out of the £5,000,000 which is allotted to the industry. It is therefore very much to the advantage of the producers of livestock that the number of the Commissioners should be kept down at the very outset.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEWe have had no indication at all of what the salaries of the members of this Commission will be, and I should be much obliged if the noble Earl could give us some idea of what they are to be.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMWith regard to the point raised by Lord Hastings, I am quite sure that that has been very much in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture in considering the number of persons on the Livestock Commission. I would wish again to emphasise that the duties that will be imposed on the Commission will be very extensive indeed, especially in the inaugural stages, and therefore I think it is most essential that no alteration should be made in the maximum numbers of the personnel of the Commission. If it is found that fewer than eight Commissioners can adequately fulfil the functions, the number will, of course, be reduced. With regard to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, it has not yet been decided what the salaries of the Commissioners shall be. I believe that the payments made will approximate to the sums now paid to the members of the Cattle Committee, with any increase that may be necessary for their additional responsibilities.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEWill they be subject to the leave of the Treasury?
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRCan an assurance be given that at the start the full eight will not necessarily be appointed? Try five to start with—that would surely be quite a good number to start with—and, if necessary, you could increase the number to eight.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI feel I have not made myself clear. The full number of the Livestock Commission will be required at its inauguration, and I may point out that members will have greater responsibilities than the members of the Cattle Committee. The Commission have the increased duties not only of communicating with the Livestock Advisory Committee, the local authorities, and the representatives of the producers and the auctioneers, but they also have to arrange the administrative procedure for livestock marketing orders and for the three experimental schemes under Part V.
§ LORD CRANWORTHThe noble Earl in his reply has certainly thrown new light on the matter, because there is nothing about this subdivision in the Bill. I quite agree that if the Commission are going to be divided into three, five is not 476 a very good number to divide into three. The noble Earl has also assured us that he will bear in mind the extreme importance of keeping as much as possible of the £5,000,000 for the purpose for which it is voted. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGIBefore the Amendment is withdrawn, will the noble Earl tell us whether, when the amount of the salary is decided, the matter will come before Parliament?
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMay I ask whether membership of this Commission will constitute an office of profit under the Crown, and thereby not be open to members of another place?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe whole position and procedure of the Livestock Commission as embodied in this Bill will come before Parliament.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ Livestock Advisory Committee.
§ 3.—(1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Commission in the discharge of their functions, there shall be constituted a committee, which shall be called, and is hereafter in this Act referred to as, the "Livestock Advisory Committee."
§ (2) The members of the Livestock Advisory Committee shall be persons appointed by the Ministers, and shall consist of representative members and four additional members.
§
The representative members of the Committee shall be persons appointed as representing respectively the interests of—
(a) persons carrying on in the United Kingdom the business of keeping livestock,
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (2) "for the purpose of breeding from it or selling it in an improved condition." The noble Earl said: This concerns the definition of the various people who are to compose the Livestock Advisory Committee. Under subsection (2) (a), it is quite obvious that by "persons carrying on 477 in the United Kingdom the business of keeping livestock" are meant the producers of livestock, but in actual fact I think there is a loophole because the ordinary dealer might be said to be a man who is carrying on the business of keeping livestock. I therefore put down this Amendment, which is modelled on the terms in the Pigs Marketing Scheme, which were especially designed to include producers and exclude dealers. The dealing interest of course may be included, if desired, in the Livestock Advisory Committee under the terms in line 27, "such other interests concerned." I hope therefore the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment as a closer definition of the producer.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, at end insert ("for the purpose of breeding from it or selling it in an improved condition.")—(The Earl of Radnor.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEBefore the noble Earl replies, might I ask the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment whether it is sufficiently comprehensive? He refers only to people who carry on the business of keeping livestock "for the purpose of breeding from it or selling it in an improved condition." But a very large number of farmers who keep livestock do not keep it for either of these purposes in the main, but rather for obtaining some economic product from it, it may be milk or it may be wool. Therefore, if such an Amendment is accepted at all I suggest it should be sufficiently comprehensive to include persons of that description.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI am sure all members of the Committee have sympathy with what I believe is the object of the noble Earl's Amendment—that is, that on the Livestock Advisory Committee there should be representatives of all sections of the industry qualified to give the technical information which the Livestock Commission require. But I would respectfully point out that the object of the Amendment is already provided for in the Bill under the phraseology of paragraph (a) of subsection (2). I am advised by legal representatives that the phrase "business of keeping livestock" covers the activities of both sections of the farming community—that is, the breeders and those who wish to fatten. It would be an unnecessary complication 478 if we filled up the Bill with specific provisions as to the sections of the livestock industry who are to come under this subsection.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has very property pointed out the difficulty that would occur if the Government were to accept the noble Earl's Amendment—namely, that not only the persons engaged in breeding and keeping livestock would be affected, but also those engaged in the sheep industry and those engaged in the milk industry. It is important to have a general provision because the effect of the Amendment might be of a restrictive character. At some subsequent date it might be found that a certain section of the farming community dealing with livestock, which we should like to include, had been omitted. Therefore it is better to leave it a general basis so that all "persons carrying on in the United Kingdom the business of keeping livestock," which embraces every form of livestock, will be eligible under paragraph (a). I hope, with this explanation, that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNORI appreciate the arguments used by the noble Earl, and I think there is a great deal of substance in them. I confess it had not occurred to me that we were dealing with anything other than fat stock, and my precedent of the Pigs Marketing Scheme therefore falls to the ground. But I should like an assurance from the noble Earl that what subsection (2) (a) means is the producers of livestock. Is that what is intended?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
(5) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsections of this section, the number of members of the Livestock Advisory Committee appointed as representatives of the interests referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall always be greater than one-half of the total number of members of the said Committee; and the number of members of each of the said subcommittees who are persons appointed as representatives of the said interests shall always be greater than one-half of the total number of the members of such subcommittee.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which speaks for itself in quite clear phraseology, asks that the persons to be included under subsection (2) (a) shall always be in the majority on the Livestock Advisory Committee and its sub-committees. This is a matter that is felt extremely strongly by the agricultural community as a whole, and it is really a very important Amendment. The fear exists in the minds of those persons who are described as "carrying on in the United Kingdom the business of keeping livestock" that their interests may be to some degree in jeopardy on the Advisory Committee at the hands, in particular, of local authorities and, in less degree, at the hands of "persons carrying on in Great Britain the business of effecting sales of livestock by auction"—in other words, the auctioneers. His Majesty's Government introduced this Bill with the express purpose of assisting the livestock industry, which I take to mean neither the local authorities nor the auctioneers but persons whose business it is to keep livestock. It is, psychologically, of the greatest importance that those persons for whose benefit this Bill has been devised should have the confidence that the Government wish them to have in the efficacy of this Bill, and that there should be no possible risk of their being swamped by interests which it is not the primary purpose of this Bill to assist.
§ It will be said, and, if not, I will say it, that this Livestock Advisory Committee is what its name denotes. It is neither more nor less than an Advisory Committee. It has no statutory powers, and consequently there is no question in this Amendment of giving a section of the community an over-riding power in relation to other sections. That, I think, is really very important, because the House might be reluctant to give power to one section of the community interested, whereas it would be much less reluctant to enable that predominating section of the community to be certain that its advice was the advice which was forwarded to the Committee. There exists in farmers' minds a perfectly natural fear that local authorities, whose main purpose in life is to spend the rates—not only to spend the rates but to spend the rates to the greatest advantage—will have no reluctance in making use of the agricultural community 480 for that particular purpose for which they themselves exist. Local authorities are in no sense concerned with the business of keeping livestock, although they may fill an important middleman's place in the disposal of such livestock. Auctioneers, again, fill a very important place in the disposal of livestock.
§ This Bill has not been brought in so that their business may prosper. It has been brought in for the express purpose of preventing the business of those who keep livestock from foundering, and it does seem to me, as it does to those who support me in this and those who have already raised the matter in other places, that an assured majority of those whose advice ought to count in this matter should be provided for in this Bill. I think that after those remarks I cannot add anything to the case which the Amendment presents to the Committee, and I very greatly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill will find it possible to accept this Amendment, always remembering that there is no statutory power in the Advisory Committee and that by acceptance of it he is not giving to any section of the community any authority which Parliament might be reluctant that it should have. It is merely to ensure that the advice of the persons for whom the Bill is devised should be conveyed to the proper quarter, and that the farming community should know that it would be their advice, and not the advice either of the auctioneers or more particularly the local authorities, which would find its way to the operating Committee.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEI should like to support this Amendment, and I think for once the noble Lord who has moved it has indulged in some measure of self-restraint in putting the case before the Committee. Although it is perfectly true that this Bill is intended mainly to help and encourage and develop the livestock industry, and also, as he well explained, that the Committee is merely an Advisory Committee (the ultimate decision resting in all these matters with the Commission) he has based his case on what is mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c)—namely, the possible preponderance of the influence 481 of the local authorities on the one hand or the auctioneers or others effecting sales of livestock on the other. He might have gone a little further and read the words which undoubtedly daunt me, to the effect that this Advisory Committee is to be representative also of "such other interests concerned in the marketing," not merely of livestock but of the "products of the slaughtering of livestock" as may appear to be affected.
This raises the old question, which we have had frequently in both Houses of Parliament to consider, as to whether the benefit of an Act of Parliament, or a Bill purporting to be to the advantage of the agricultural community, may not pass to these middleman interests which are more preponderant in this country than in any other country of the world that I know of. These operate no doubt to their own financial advantage, and in many cases no doubt also in the matter of the effective distribution of agricultural products, but they undoubtedly take, to the disadvantage of both producers and consumers, much too large a proportion of the value of the agricultural products of this country. For these reasons I venture to hope that there will be provided for, by this clause, as amended, a majority on this Advisory Committee (bearing in mind that it is but an Advisory Committee) representing the livestock producers of the country.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI venture very strongly to support this Amendment. I am one of those people who are always very much impressed by Government spokesmen. I do not deny the fact that for four years, on an average at least once a week, I have listened to the leading Government spokesmen telling me that the great merits of the schemes now before Parliament with regard to various marketing schemes were that they were producers' schemes rather than schemes by producers for producers. I have heard Ministers say again and again: "There you are; here are your own things for yourselves," and that everything in the garden was lovely. I find it a little difficult myself, after such a brief space of time, to welcome a new scheme in which the producer not only has no single representation of any sort or kind on the Board itself, but would appear to be almost certainly in a small minority on the Advisory 482 Committee. After all, as the noble Lord who has just sat down has pointed out, the people who are entitled to a seat on the Board are, as far as I can understand, every section of the community with the exception of vegetarians. I venture to hope that the Government will see fit to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNORI do not like to differ to any great extent from my noble friends behind me, but I must confess that the way in which this Amendment strikes me is this. I will admit that it is undesirable that either local authorities or other interests should predominate on this Livestock Advisory Committee, but I would go further and say it is highly undesirable that any particular section concerned in the industry should predominate. Therefore I do not think it is really desirable that even the producers should predominate. Although it has been emphasised by the three previous speakers that this is a Bill which is entirely for the benefit of the producers of livestock, I would point out that it also has in its Title the words "the holding of livestock markets and the slaughtering of livestock and purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." The Livestock Advisory Committee will presumably have to advise on those matters as well as on other matters. I quite honestly feel that it is highly undesirable that a majority of farmers, who actually have probably had little or no experience of the organisation of slaughtering or of livestock markets, should have the predominant voice in advice on those matters. I would therefore most respectfully suggest that the Bill as it stands now ensures that no particular section is likely to have a predominance. The two others that are mentioned are the auctioneers and the local authorities. In my own experience I think it is unlikely that auctioneers and local authorities will join forces in order to overwhelm the producers. Therefore I feel that as it is now it is a reasonably balanced Committee, and that one does not need to worry about the predominance of any particular section.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe noble Lord who moved this Amendment has, with his usual force, attached great importance to the numerical majorities on the Livestock Advisory Committee, and he said that he not only spoke for 483 himself as an agriculturist but for a large body of opinion among agriculturists generally. I must confess that I cannot but think that during the course of proceedings on this Bill in another place, and until now, there has been some misapprehension as to the true functions and responsibilities of the Livestock Advisory Committee. What is the purpose of this Livestock Advisory Committee? The members will meet for the purpose of rendering advice on highly technical matters. It is not intended to be a body for the protection of interests. The protection of interests is dealt with by other procedure under the Bill. The Advisory Committee is to be composed of persons who are best qualified to bring from their respective sections of the industry—whether from the angle of the producers or from that of the auctioneers or from that of the local authorities—technical advice to assist the Commission in the discharge of their duties. If members of your Lordships' House will agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, that we shall be safer in relying for the protection of interests upon the procedure contained in the Bill for making sure that every opportunity for the ventilation of local interests is provided, either before the Commission by public inquiry, or before the Minister with regard to markets, or before the House of Commons, then I think we should turn the Livestock Advisory Committee to the best utility to which it can be put.
I wish to assure noble Lords that, as the Livestock Advisory Committee and each of its sub-committees has an independent Chairman, it will be their function to see that the views of those sections of the industry which have specific relation to the matter under discussion should be put before the proper body, which is the Livestock Commission. I would further like to point out that the Committee will, under the Second Schedule, determine its own procedure, subject to the direction of Ministers. I think, therefore, your Lordships can rest assured that the views of all sections will be conveyed to the Commission. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, very properly pointed out, it is not intended that there should be a resolution by majority under the procedure of the Livestock Advisory 484 Committee. The sole purpose is to provide extra information by technicians on the different aspects covered by the various parts of the Bill. I think the conception of a Livestock Advisory Committee would be defeated if we were to create any majority, a majority of one third, as proposed in another place, or of one half as proposed by the noble Lord. You would get matters solely directed by resolution and you would get conflicting interests taking a prominent part, which I think would detract from the full usefulness of the Livestock Advisory Committee.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that his analogy between the position of the independent producer under this Bill and the representation of producers under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, is hardly applicable, because under the Agricultural Marketing Act the producers themselves are placed in an administrative capacity. They have administrative functions and responsibilities to fulfil. The Livestock Advisory Committee is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, truly said, what its title denotes. It is to act in an advisory capacity, and has no administrative responsibility as such. Therefore I do not think that the claim can be substantiated that the Government have departed greatly from the necessity of having producers fully represented upon committees. I hope that this is an explanation which the noble Lord will accept.
LORD PHILLIMOREI do not feel that this subject has been fully thrashed out in all its bearings. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has just pointed out, this is not a marketing scheme in which farmers, to use a short word, are the responsible parties. This is only an Advisory Committee. But this is the only place in the Bill where the farmer, as such, comes in and takes up some small burden of responsibility, if it is only the burden of tendering advice. It seems to me that to push the farmer down to a level with the municipal authority is to leave him in a position of total irresponsibility and non-co-operation, and thereby to do without one of the most vitalising and important principles of the marketing schemes, that of obtaining the co-operation of the farmers in the conduct of the industry. We all know that at times co-operation works with great 485 difficulty, and we see in this Bill a great rebound from what I may call the marketing scheme idea. None the less, co-operation between farmers is of transcendent importance. I am not sure that the most important thing you can do for farmers to-day is not to encourage them in co-operation.
By refusing this Amendment you are virtually saying to the farmers: "We are not going to treat you as persons of responsibility anxious to promote the objects which this Bill puts forward." It would be foolish, I think, to assume that a farming majority on the Livestock Advisory Committee would act as an obstacle to progress and to careful and sound consideration of the matters before them. By giving people responsibility you generally educate them up to a sense of how to use that responsibility. By depriving them of it you put them at once into opposition. On these general grounds I think it is very desirable that you should get the farming community to take some responsibility for the working of the Act. Unless the Minister can give us some other reason for refusing, the co-operation of the farming industry, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will go to a Division.
THE EARL OF RADNORBefore the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, replies, there is one remark of my noble friend Lord Phillimore which I think, quite honestly, puts the farmer in rather a bad light; because he points out that if the farmer is not going to get a majority on this Livestock Advisory Committee, he is going to behave like a spoilt child and refuse to co-operate.
THE EARL OF RADNORWell, that was the implication of what the noble Lord said. There is a further implication in what the noble Lord said, and that is that those who are in a minority—that is to say, the auctioneers and the local authorities—are people of no account and will not be expected to co-operate. I think that he is first of all, as I have said, putting the farmer in rather a poor light as one who refuses to co-operate or as one not likely to co-operate if he does not get a majority; and secondly, saying that the other interests who are very closely affected under this Bill are really 486 people of no account as compared with the farmers.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKI rather hope that the Government will stick to their point over this. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend who moved this Amendment, but I do feel, like the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that it is not right on a Committee of this kind to make one section of its members predominant over the rest. I can imagine a very difficult situation arising if the farmers on this Committee, in the majority, made a certain recommendation which was contrary to the views of the other sections. The Government themselves would then be placed in a very difficult position, because I can conceive of the farmers, being what they are and what very often we know they are when they do not get their own way, rising up in their wrath and saying: "Well, we are the predominant force on this Committee and we should be listened to, and if we are not listened to, well, then, we shall probably be inclined to resign from the Committee." We have had an experience of the kind in Scotland with regard to the acclimatisation of sheep, where the farmers are in the majority so far as arbitration matters are concerned. Many of those of us who are lairds, or landowners, have been trying to get rid of that predomination and to substitute another body for it. I feel that in this case it would be highly injudicious for the Government to accept the existence of an Advisory Committee on which there were three sections, one of which predominated over the other two. I hope the Government will stick to their point.
§ LORD HASTINGSI was very disappointed at the reply of my noble friend in charge of the Bill, because I feel quite confident that he, in common with all other members of this Committee, desires only one thing: that this Bill should work. We want to see that it works. When I ventured to introduce the Amendment I used the words "psychological effect." My noble friend Lord Phillimore developed that side of the matter in much the same way, but I should have said, if he had not already done it for me, that you must secure willing co-operation in order to make this Bill function. There is an age-old grievance felt by the producers of every commodity that the bulk of their efforts goes into the 487 pockets of somebody else, and here we are right up against that sense of grievance, coupled with a determination on the part of the agricultural community to establish, if possible, here and now, the fact that this is their Bill and not a Bill which has been invented for the advantage of other communities. If you get into the farmers' mind the impression that this Bill has veritably been introduced and passed into law for their advantage, you will get their co-operation in the fullest sense. But if you allow the suspicion to deepen and to sink in that the natural enemy of producing mankind—that is, the middleman—is going to get all the plums, you are not going to get that co-operation and welcome to which the Bill is in the main entitled.
I admit very readily that the arguments of my noble friend in opposing this Amendment are perfectly sound as far as they go, but they do not to my mind go far enough, because they do not take into account just those psychological effects which are going to make the whole difference between the success and failure of this measure. When he stood at the Table there and endeavoured to make the Committee believe that the decisions of this Advisory Committee and of its sub-committees were not to be taken in the ordinary way by resolution, I failed to follow him. After all, what is a Chairman of a Committee to do when he finds divergence of opinion in the Committee? He has to take a vote, and the majority of votes is the decision which will go forward as the advice of that Committee. If on any one of these Committees, which affect most intimately the livelihood of a large section of the community, other interests than those that I have mentioned and those that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe mentioned were, for reasons of their own, to combine against the producer, the advice of those interests, and not the advice of the farmer-producer for whom this Bill was brought in, would go forward as the advice of the Committee.
This is very strongly felt by the agricultural community, and I do not think that any argument can really alter their feeling in the matter. All the things that have been said by my noble friends Lord Radnor and Lord Elibank have, of course, been weighed in the balance before. We in this Committee can only 488 add to the things that have been said on the subject in another place. But the farming community is not shaken by any of those arguments, and is determined, if it can, to ensure that its views, and its views only, shall predominate; not that they shall be the only views that are heard, but that they shall predominate on this Advisory Committee and its subcommittees. I regret that I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEMay I, with the leave of the Committee, ask just one question? These representative members appear to be unlimited in number; at any rate, no number is specified, and I notice that, although a specific representation is provided for those who are said to be keeping livestock, for local authorities, and for those who sell livestock, nothing whatever is said in detail about these many "other interests" that are concerned in the sale either of livestock or of products of livestock. I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whom he has in mind as answering to the description of these other interests; whether they are butchers, provision dealers and the like. One is entitled to know what proportion of representation will be allotted to those middleman interests, who, as we all know by experience, are apt, unless they are kept under proper restraint, to take an undue part of the value of agricultural produce. What I should very much like to know is what particular class of person the noble Earl has in mind as answering to this somewhat vague description, and what proportion of that interest is likely to be represented on this Advisory Committee.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has just raised a point which should have prominence in facing the question now under discussion; that is, that there is a very great difficulty in fixing the proportion of an unascertained total. The noble Lord has just asked whether the Livestock Advisory Committee is fixed in its personnel and total number. The answer is that it is not fixed in its total number, for the one desire of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is to create an advisory body that will be most efficient for its purpose and attain the object for which this Bill has been brought into being. If he suc- 489 ceeds, then at a later date it might be found necessary to bring on to this Advisory Committee certain interests other than those specifically stated—the producers, the local authorities, and the auctioneers.
The noble Lord has asked me if I can say exactly what those representatives will represent. The answer is that under the provisions of slaughtering and marketing there are those who undertake processing in the by-products of the slaughter of the animal, and in relation to the slaughter-house schemes, in particular, it may very well prove that if these schemes are going to be economic and satisfactory it will be necessary to have technical advice from representatives of these by-products upon the Livestock Advisory Committee. It
§ Clause 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Subsidy to producers of fat cattle.
§ 4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any orders and regulations under this Part of this Act, the Ministers may make, in accordance with a scheme made by the Commission and approved by an order of the Ministers for the time being in force, payments to producers of fat cattle in respect of—
- (a) steers, heifers or cow-heifers sold or slaughtered in the United Kingdom on or after the appointed day by or on behalf of such producers, or
- (b) carcases of steers, heifers or cow-heifers sold or slaughtered as aforesaid,
§ is therefore an enabling measure which enables the Livestock Commission and the Minister to appoint to the Livestock Advisory Committee persons who will be able to throw some light, and be of real service, by contributing that expert knowledge which is required by the Livestock Commission. That is why provision is made for other than the categories specifically mentioned in the Bill, and why it is at this juncture impossible to state the total number of persons who will serve upon the Live-stock Advisory Committee.
§ On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be inserted in the clause?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 40.
489| CONTENTS. | ||
| Aberdeen and Temair, M. | Wicklow, E. | Cranworth, L. [Teller.] |
| Hastings, L. [Teller.] | ||
| Ancaster, E. | Bledisloe, V. | Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) |
| Bathurst, E. | Plumer, V. | Middleton, L. |
| Roden, E. | O'Hagan, L. | |
| Selborne, E. | Cautley, L. | Phillimore, L. |
| Cornwallis, L. | Strickland, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Hailsham V. (L. Chancellor.) | Bertie of Thame, V. | Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) |
| Elibank, V. | Gage, L. (V. Cage.) [Teller.] | |
| De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Goschen, V. | Greenway, L. |
| Mersey, V. | Holden, L. | |
| Beatty, E. | Samuel, V. | Howard of Glossop, L. |
| Feversham, E. | Swinton, V. | Hutchison of Montrose, L. |
| Haddington, E. | Jessel, L. | |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Arnold, L. | Remnant, L. |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Biddulph, L. | Rowallan, L. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Saltoun, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Snell, L. | |
| Munster, E. | Clwyd, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Doverdale, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Radnor, E. | Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) | Templemore, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Wolverton, L. |
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ being animals, or, as the case may be, carcases of animals which have been certified in accordance with the scheme to be of any of the descriptions for the time being defined by regulations under this Part of this Act.
§ LORD STRABOLGI moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Where the prevailing price for fat cattle is less than the price to be fixed by the Ministers as the standard price and." The noble Lord said: I am sure your Lordships will regret to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is ill. He has therefore asked me to move this Amendment for him. I do not think he is seriously ill, because he was able 491 to explain it to me over the telephone, which was very useful, although the Amendment is a very simple one and, we submit, a very proper one. The object of the Amendment is to insert the words "Where the prevailing price for fat cattle is less than the price to be fixed by the Ministers as the standard price and," at the beginning of the clause. Then follow the words as printed in the Bill. The argument is that a subsidy should not be given indiscriminately, and independently of the price of the product subsidised—that if the price of fat cattle rises (and under the present Government the price of foodstuffs is rising all the time) then there ought to be some limit beyond which the subsidy should not be paid.
§ I am speaking for my Party in this matter, and we are against subsidies. As an economic purist I personally am very much against subsidies to private enterprise. But we admit that in certain cases a subsidy may be necessary, and, much as we dislike subsidies, we should not have had so great an objection had this been a subsidy aimed at filling the gap between the cost of production and the market price. We realise that there must be a fat stock industry in the country, and that the farmers who are doing an important work for the nation should at any rate not lose money by raising fat cattle; and we might without much demur have accepted a subsidy for filling the gap between the cost of production and the market price. But this subsidy is indiscriminate and unlimited—I mean unlimited as regards the price of the product subsidised. At an earlier stage in these discussions the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said that the Government's promise was that the machinery of this Bill should be run by producers for producers. That is a very strong argument for having some limit on the subsidy to be paid.
§ I would remind your Lordships that this principle of subsidy according to price is quite an old one in post-War economics. The wheat subsidy is a case in point. There the subsidy is paid according to the price of wheat, and I think the same principle was followed in the earlier legislation for the production of beet sugar. I should like to point out that when the first subsidy for fat cattle was introduced by the predecessors 492 of the present Government in 1934, the price of fat cattle per live cwt. was 37s., and the subsidy was 5s. per cwt. Last week at Doncaster market, which I suppose is about average, at any rate for the North Country, the price was 48s. 3d. That is a tremendous rise, and yet the subsidy of 5s. is still being paid. Now, according to the White Paper, the subsidy is to be 7s. 6d. per live cwt., and irrespective of the price. Therefore, we say it would be much fairer if the Minister fixed a standard price, and that if the price rose above that the subsidy should be either diminished or withheld. The objection will be raised, "But how can you ascertain the cost of production of fat cattle? It varies according to climatic conditions and soil, proximity to markets, and so on." That we accept. We do not propose that there should be costings of the production price in 50,000 farms in England, Scotland and Wales. But the Government have their sources of information, and they can strike an average of the fair cost of production on the average farm. The Ministry of Agriculture have their research farms, a very large bureaucracy and very able statisticians, and they could surely work this out. My noble friends and myself rather think that this question of the cost of production goes to the very heart of the agricultural problem in this country.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, at the beginning insert ("Where the prevailing price for fat cattle is less than the price to be fixed by the Ministers as the standard price and").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMAS the noble Lord has already stated, this Amendment involves the fixing of a standard price for fat cattle on the lines of that fixed by the Wheat Act, but, as has frequently been pointed out in your Lordships' House, an analogy between the Wheat Act and the standard price of fat cattle cannot be drawn because of the difficulty, as the noble Lord himself admitted, of determining costs of production with any accuracy, and because such costs, if they could be determined, vary very much between different parts of the country. The noble Lord was under the impression that it would be comparatively easy for the Ministry of Agriculture to arrive at a single figure for beef production costs that might have a universal application in formulating the figure for 493 the standard price, but, apart from the difficulty which he recognises and admits, there are certain other difficulties. There is first the difficulty of costing methods. There is a marked difference of opinion and practice among farm economists themselves as to the best methods of allocating such charges as management, overheads, depreciation, and interest to the various farm enterprises. There is, further than this, the difficulty of isolating beef production from other farming prices. As the noble Lord will appreciate, a large proportion of meat production is dependent on the cost of producing crops for animal consumption. Estimates have to be made of the cost of home-grown foods, and further estimates are required of the amounts fed to stock. These are difficulties that tend to render any figure of cost that may be ultimately arrived at more or less hypothetical, and I rather think that the noble Lord appreciates that difficulty.
Apart from the practical considerations which I have mentioned, in so far as the Amendment is designed to secure an automatic reduction in the amount of subsidy payments as and when fat cattle prices rise, the noble Lord can rest assured, as was indicated in the White Paper issued in January, that the rates of subsidy that will be prescribed from time to time will take account of the market situation. The noble Lord said that the price of fat cattle before the original emergency subsidy provisions were made in 1934 was about 37s. per live cwt. but that to-day in Doncaster market it was 48s. 3d. Well, that figure is considerably above the average figure, first and second quality, taken from representative markets throughout the country. But undoubtedly there has been a very considerable rise in market prices, and I cannot but think that the noble Lord cannot have been much associated with the industry of the production of fat cattle if he is under the impression that, because there has been that increase, it is already a substantially profitable industry.
The noble Lord will perhaps recall that in another place great pressure was brought upon my right honourable friend by certain agricultural representatives that the standard price should be around the figure of 48s. and that at 494 any figure less than that it was impossible for the producer of fat stock to make a profit. That figure we have not accepted, on the grounds already indicated by me, but we have all agreed that the figure per live cwt. that has prevailed for fat cattle during the course of the last five or six years has been such as in certain instances to provide no incentive for the production of fat stock, which during that time has been carried on at a loss. For all these reasons I hope the noble Lord will realise both the difficulty of assessing a standard price and the fact that his main criticism is already provided for inasmuch as the market situation will be taken into account from time to time; and that he will withdraw his amendment.
§ LORD HASTINGSIn case the noble Lord does not know, but 1 expect he does know, I would remind him that in the first instance the agricultural community itself pressed for something very much of the kind he has in mind. A standard price was asked for which should be made up by the subsidy so that there would always be a limit to the subsidy. That was resisted from the beginning by His Majesty's Government, and the agricultural community gave it up because, on balance, the arguments were in favour of the Government and against the arguments put forward by the agricultural community.
LORD STRABOLGII cannot withdraw the Amendment, but I do not know that I shall press it. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and to the Minister for their replies. I do not usually take part in agricultural debates, and I have never pretended to be a specialist in agricultural matters, but it really defeats me to understand why it is possible to fix an average price on which you can base a subsidy for wheat and a subsidy for beet sugar and hops, for example, and not in this case. I can only accept what the noble Earl says with this observation, that within the near future, when my Party is in power, I trust our agricultural experts will see that we have a real costing department for all products of the soil. If I may venture to say so, that seems to be the greatest scientific necessity of agriculture.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
495
§
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("b") insert ("the") line 8, after ("be") insert ("the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Subsidy arrangements]:
§ LORD HASTINGS had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (1), after "Commission," to insert "after consultation with the Livestock Advisory Committee." The noble Lord said: Having failed to carry my previous Amendment, I take no interest in this Amendment. Indeed I repudiate it!
§ Clause 5 agreed to.
§ Clause 6:
§ Regulations.
§
6. The Ministers, after consulting the Commission, may make regulations—
(2) directing—
and prescribing the manner in which the weight of any animal may be computed for those purposes;
§ (4) directing that an application for the certification of an animal as aforesaid shall not be granted if it appears to the person whose function it is to entertain the application either that the animal has been castrated after attaining such age as may be specified in the regulations, or that the animal is in milk or is pregnant;
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (2) (a), to leave out "an animal shall not be so certified" and insert "no subsidy payment shall be made in respect of any animal or carcase." The noble Earl said: By leave of the Committee, I should like to take this and the next four Amendments together. The subsidy may be paid on the basis of a live animal or carcase under subsection (1) of Clause 4, and it is desirable to make it perfectly clear that the references to "animal" in the lines mentioned in these Amendments have similar force in regard to "carcase."
496
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out from ("that") to ("if") in line 10 and insert ("no subsidy payment shall be made in respect of any animal or carcase").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEI am bound to say I do not fully understand the exact result of these Amendments. It does occur to me that both as the Bill stands and as it is proposed to be amended it will not operate quite as the producer would desire in the matter of pigs. In this connection I should very much like to hear what that well-known pig breeder, my noble friend Lord Radnor, has to say upon the matter, because this is quite obviously putting a premium on an animal over a certified weight. My experience is that a bacon pig is often less acceptable to a bacon factory or to an expert butcher if it is over a certain weight than if it is under a certain weight. In other words, to give your Lordships an illustration, though I am not so conversant with the pig market as I used to be, I would suggest that an optimum bacon pig, if I may use such an expression, should be between 7½ and 8½ score dead-weight, and if it were 12 score or more it would not be the sort of pig we ought in any way to encourage as of the highest type for consumption by any expert consumer in this country.
What I am going to suggest to the noble Earl for consideration is that, instead of saying that no subsidy payment shall be made in respect of any animal or carcase if the weight of the animal is less than such weight as may be set out in the regulations, it might be better expressed "if the weight of the animal is not within such limits of weight as may be certified." In other words, instead of providing that the particular animal to receive the subsidy shall be over a certain weight, the Ministry might well prescribe that it shall be within certain limits of weight to provide what I have called an optimum fat animal from the market point of view.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMWith due respect to the noble Viscount, I should point out that this clause does not embrace pigs. I should have made that clear earlier. The purpose of these Amendments is merely to make it clear that the references to "animal" in the 497 lines mentioned have similar force in regard to "carcase."
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 6, line 10, after ("animal") insert ("or carcase")
§ Page 6, line 12, after ("regulations") insert ("in relation to animals or carcases, as the case may be")
§ Page 6, line 14, after ("animal") insert ("or of a carcase")
§ Page 6, line 19, after ("animal") insert ("or carcase").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (4), to leave out "either that the animal has been castrated, after attaining such age as may be specified in the regulations, or" and insert:
- "(a) in the case of a male animal, that by reason of late or ineffective castration the animal shows the physical characteristics of bulls, or
- (b) in the case of a female animal."
§ The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to rule out from the subsidy animals which, by reason of late or ineffective castration, will not give steer beef but beef of a kind given by bulls. This Amendment meets the point raised by representations of the National Farmers' Union, that animals bearing a tattoo mark in the ear, indicating that they had been rejected for licensing as bulls, were ruled cut from subsidy when presented later as steers whether or not they showed bull characteristics. In some few cases an animal which has been castrated after it was nine months old nevertheless retains the characteristics of a steer and is quite capable of producing good beef. In such cases there is no reason why the animal should not be eligible for subsidy payments. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("that") in line 39 and insert the said paragraphs (a) and (b).— (The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 agreed to.
498§ Clause 8:
§ Incidental provisions as to orders and regulations under Part II.
§ 8.—(1) The power to make an order under any of the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be construed as including a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions and approval, if any, to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order and the power to make and submit, or to approve, a subsidy scheme shall be construed as including a power, exercisable in the like manner, to make and submit, or to approve, as the case may be, a subsidy scheme varying or revoking such a scheme already approved; and every order approving a subsidy scheme shall set forth the scheme in a schedule to the order.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "conditions" and insert "consultation." The noble Earl said: This is merely drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, leave out ("conditions") and insert ("consultation").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ LORD HASTINGSI should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is really quite satisfied that this is a drafting Amendment. The clause would then say "subject to like consultation," and of course there is no "like" consultation. I have no doubt that the reference is to the first line of Clause 6. That is the nearest I can find to any mention of consultation, but it does not appear in the clause we are now discussing. I should be inclined to doubt whether this is really a drafting Amendment. I only suggest to the noble Earl that this is probably not the proper way to do what he wants.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI have been advised that this is a pure drafting Amendment of the Bill. With it Clause 8 would read:
The power to make an order under any of the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be construed as including a power exerciseable in the like manner and subject to the like consultation and approval.…My legal advisers assure me that it is drafting.
§ LORD HASTINGSI do not doubt that it is drafting, but I have not more confidence in the draftsmen than any other noble Lords. ' I suggest that the noble Earl might find it well to draw the attention of the drafting officers themselves to this particular point and ask them if they are satisfied that they are putting into the Bill what they meant to put in. But I will not object to it.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI think the noble Lord will find that under Clause 5, subsection (1),"it shall be the duty of the Commission, "after consultation with the Livestock Advisory Committee, "to make and submit a subsidy scheme"; but I shall be glad in any event to inquire into the matter before Report.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 9:
§ Transitional operation, and repeal, of Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts.
§ 9.—(1) As from the beginning of the appointed day—
- (a) subsections (1) and (2) of Section two of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall continue to have effect in relation only to such animals, or the carcases of such animals, as have been sold before the appointed day by producers of cattle within the meaning of that Act, and accordingly the said Act shall have effect as if the period specified in subsection (1) of Section two of the Act were a period ending immediately before the appointed day; and
- (b) the duties imposed on the Cattle Committee by subsection (1) of Section four of the said Act shall be performed by the Commission.
§ (2) Subject to the preceding provisions of this section, the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts, 1934 to 1936, shall cease to have effect at the beginning of the appointed day.
§ (3) An animal which has, before the appointed day, been certified in accordance with arrangements approved by the appropriate Ministers for the purposes of Section two of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, and which has, not later than one month after the date of the certification, been sold by a producer of cattle within the meaning of that Act, shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) of the said section, as amended by this section, to have been sold as aforesaid before the appointed day, not withstanding that the sale may in fact have been effected on or after that day.
§
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
(1) Section four of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, shall cease to have effect at the beginning of the appointed day, and the functions of the Committee appointed under that section shall, in relation to the arrangements mentioned in Section two of the said Act, be discharged, on and after the appointed day, by the Commission.
§ The noble Earl said: This is not an important amendment. It is to make the necessary adjustment in the appointed day. It is proposed by an Amendment 500 in Clause 56 to defer the appointed day on and from which the new rates of subsidy may be paid from a day falling before the end of June, 1937, to the 1st August, 1937. Under the present Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts, 1934–36, animals must be sold on or before 31st July, 1937, in order to be eligible for subsidy. Therefore it is not now necessary to provide for the revocation of those Acts. This is the reason for the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert the said new subsection.— (The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "as amended by this section." The noble Earl said: This is practically a drafting Amendment. Although there will now be no overlapping with regard to the eligibility of animals between the emergency legislation and the present Bill, it still remains necessary to make provision in this Bill for the payment of subsidy in respect of animals or carcases sold before 1st August, 1937, but not certified until that day or later.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("as amended by this section").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 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.
§ (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the preceding subsection, an order under this section may, in particular, regulate the importation into the United Kingdom of livestock or meat to which the order relates by determining, for any such period as may be specified in the order,—
- (a) the quantities of such livestock or meat, or of any description thereof, which may be imported;
- (b) the descriptions of such livestock or meat which may be imported;
§ (4) The power of the Board of Trade under Section one of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. to regulate the importation of agricultural products shall not be exercisable in relation to livestock or meat, but any order made under that section for regulating the importation of livestock or meat shall, if and so far as it was in force immediately before the passing of this Act, continue in force and be deemed to be an order duly made under this section.
§ LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (1), after "Trade," to insert "after consultation with the Ministers." The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the President of the Board of Trade will act after consultation with the Ministers. The Ministers, it will be realised from the interpretation clause, means the Minister for Agriculture and officials and the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think it has been quite accepted in another place that consultations should and ought to take place between the Ministers concerned in this very important matter, but it would appear to me that it would be desirable to put into the Bill that such consultations should take place. Already in other Marketing Bills consultation is made an obligation on the part of the President of the Board of Trade, and everyone recognises that it is his function to see that the regulations with regard to these matters are carried out and not the duty of the Minister of Agriculture. I think it will probably be agreed that such consultation is both necessary and desirable. I think in this matter the Minister expressed sympathy with the intention of this Amendment in the process of discussion in another place.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, after ("Trade") insert ("after consultation with the Ministers").— (Lord O'Hagan.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEAlthough I for my part am a little apprehensive as to how the working out of this Part of this 502 Bill will operate, at any rate in regard to imports from some of our overseas Dominions, I should like to support this Amendment, because I think there it is most important that whatever may be described as the agricultural policy of this country should be quite evidently the agricultural policy of every Department of State in this country, and there is no doubt whatever that suggestions have been made on more than one occasion in recent years that the policy in this regard of the Board of Trade has not been entirely in harmony with the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture. Speaking as one who has looked on from a distance at the working out of these problems in the Old Country, I am bound to say that it would tend to create a greater feeling of confidence, not only on the part of the agricultural community in this country but also on the part of Government in the overseas Dominions, so far as I can estimate, if it were quite clear that there was a uniform policy in these matters agreed upon after consultation between the respective Departments concerned.
LORD PHILLIMOREI rise in the hope of drawing some explanation from the Front Bench. I support the Amendment, and I do so because the clause as it stands seems to me, on the face of it, to be designed to be a. dead letter. I am not sure whether that is the case, but my opinion that such is the case is a good deal strengthened by the argument which I remember being used by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in reference to the marketing schemes. I think I am right in saying that he told us repeatedly that it was not possible to regulate imports unless and until a marketing scheme had been prepared. This clause breaks right away from that, and says quite plainly that the Board of Trade shall have power to regulate imports. On the other hand, as my noble friends have pointed out, it does not encourage the Board of Trade to consult with the Minister of Agriculture, and it leaves with the Board the whole onus of taking action. If no action is contemplated, as I rather suspect is the case, then of course it does not matter much what words are put in the clause, but if action is quite definitely contemplates it seems obvious that the Minister of 503 Agriculture at least should be taken into consultation before the Board of Trade acts. I hope we shall have some further explanation on this point.
THE EARL OF RADNORBefore the noble Earl replies, I should like to say that there seems some substance in the point raised by my noble friend Lord Phillimore, because my recollection is that the first clause of the Marketing Act of 1933 quite definitely states that there shall be no restriction of imports unless there is a marketing scheme either in force or in contemplation. My real object in rising, however, is to ask the noble Earl when he replies to take into consideration the two next Amendments on the Paper as having a bearing on the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has asked that there shall be consultation with the Ministers. I am proposing to move an Amendment that there shall be consultation with the Commission, and my noble friend Lord Cranworth wants some mention made of considerations arising out of seasonal production.
I think I am right in saying that in another place when an Amendment similar to that of Lord O'Hagan was moved, the Minister or his representative replied to the effect that an order under this part of the Act would be a Cabinet matter, and that therefore the President of the Board of Trade would inevitably have to consult his colleagues in the Cabinet, including the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland. But I do not regard that as a complete answer, because I know that the reply to my Amendment, providing for consultation with the Commission, will be that the Board of Trade cannot consult the Commission because that would mean going over the heads of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, unless the next two Amendments are taken into consideration by the noble Earl, it looks as if he may defeat the three Amendments piecemeal and we shall get nothing. I would suggest to him that he should accept them all. Then he cannot use the argument that the Board of Trade will be going over the heads of Ministers by consulting the Commission, and equally he cannot say that the President of the 504 Board of Trade will not be consulting his colleagues. Further, may I say that I think consultation, especially in view of my noble friend Lord Cranworth's Amendment, is most highly desirable. The question of seasonal production is of very great importance to the producer, and the producer, through the Commission, can provide the expert knowledge which the Board of Trade has not got and cannot get in any other way. If the answer is that they will be consulted in any case, then why not put it in the Bill?
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARR)The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has put forward the very ingenuous suggestion that I should accept all the Amendments on the Paper in order to avoid any difficulties. I only wish it were possible to adopt that solution. Really I think the Amendment is moved under a misapprehension. If it means anything at all, it weakens the very principle that the noble Lord who moved it wishes to establish. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said it was desirable that in all cases the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland should act as one. But to insert such an Amendment as this in the Bill suggests that it is possible constitutionally for them not so to act. The noble Lord referred to the fact that in the past there had been suspicion that there was certain disagreement on policy between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture. Well, between Departments which, to some extent, overlap, there are frequently different points of view which it is the duty of the head of each Department to put before his colleagues. But there is only one Cabinet decision, and the Cabinet—that is, His Majesty's Government—are responsible for all policy, whether it is put forward by the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Agriculture.
If I were to accept this Amendment it would be a deliberate denial of the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. Of course, when the Minister of Agriculture or the President of the Board of Trade takes any action he can only do so as a member of a Government. If I may put it colloquially, he can only "get away" with that action with his Cabinet colleagues if, in fact, he has consulted his colleagues. The whole system of Cabinet 505 government would break down immediately if individual Ministers acted without consultation with their colleagues. Therefore I suggest that not only is this Amendment unnecessary, but it is undesirable.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think it is the fact that there is a precedent for this in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. That is perfectly true; but it is a. bad precedent. It is one which I probably accepted myself, though I cannot imagine why; it must have been because noble Lords were pressing me very hard at that moment!
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOENo one could endorse more heartily than I do the view properly put forward by the noble Earl on his accession to the ranks of the Cabinet that there should be a combined responsibility in the Cabinet for any important policy, very particularly in reference to international relations. First of all, however, I would remind the noble Earl, although I have no chapter and verse to refer to, that in several Acts of Parliament already passed you have the phrase "The Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with the Minister of Health. "or, it may be, "with the President of the Board of Trade, "shall do so and so. I am certain; I cannot give you chapter and verse, but I have handled Bills, sitting on that Front Bench in days gone by, in which those words have either been inserted in the Bill itself or have been accepted as a result of Amendment. I cannot therefore believe that any question of the joint responsibility of the Cabinet really enters into the matter.
But I want quite seriously to impress upon your Lordships that it is most desirable, in these matters where an international problem is involved, to make it perfectly clear that there is no domestic difference so far as the British Government are concerned, and that decision has been arrived at after consultation between the two Departments which are concerned in the matter. There is not the least doubt that, so far as the farming community are concerned, there have been more than rumours during the last two years: there have; been suggestions, in regard to this very difficult and delicate problem of the extent to which restriction 506 shall be placed upon commodities imported from overseas, that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Trade have not been at one. Well, at any rate, bearing in mind that the noble Earl and others have pointed out that in any case there will be of necessity consultations between these two Departments, why not put it into the Bill? There is no doubt whatever that to do so would ease a certain measure of anxiety that prevails among the farming community, and, as I have ventured to suggest, would present to the overseas Governments concerned an appearance of solidarity in the British Government in its approach to these problems.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThe noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, says that the precedent is a bad one. I should like to ask him if these provisions have been found in practice to work badly, and if so, in what respect.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThere is no question of their working at all. One of our main points was that they had no real effect whatever, but that every time an Amendment such as this is inserted in a Bill, it does to that extent suggest to the public that Ministers do not act by consultation amongst themselves, and to that extent it is bad.
LORD O'HAGANI do not intend to press this Amendment, but I cannot accept the idea that the insertion of these words would convey a wrong impression. They would in fact correct what appears to be a very wrong impression existing among a great many of the agricultural community at the present time. So far as that point is concerned, I am afraid I am not impressed by the argument of my noble friend. At the same time, I cannot admit that a provision in the Bill that one Minister of the Crown shall consult on a particular topic with other Departments directly concerned with that topic bears a suggestion that Cabinet responsibility is not a reality. In spite of these few remarks, in view of what has been said and in view of what I feel to be the general sense of the Committee, I will not press this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "countries," to insert "and after consulting the Commission. "The noble Earl said: I have already said a word or two on this 507 matter in speaking to Lord O'Hagan's Amendment. I am sorry he did not press his Amendment, because I am afraid that what I forecast may come to pass: that is, that His Majesty's Government will defeat both these Amendments piecemeal. I understand from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that there is no question about it and that the Board of Trade will consult the Ministers. Nevertheless, I want to get inserted in this subsection a provision that the Commission are also consulted. Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill lays down that it is the duty of the Livestock Commission to keep generally under review the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock, and so on. That is to say, they are the experts who will have under their hands and in their minds the knowledge which will enable the Board of Trade to make the necessary rules and regulations about restriction of imports. This, we are told, is a Cabinet matter and therefore the Board of Trade will consult with the Ministers. Presumably, therefore, it will consult with the Ministers at Cabinet meetings. I feel that any question of this sort is not nearly so much a Cabinet matter as one of inter-departmental detail and not at all susceptible to discussion in the Cabinet. Not only is it inter-departmental detail, but it is also detail which very closely affects the industry about which we are now attempting to legislate. As you propose to set up under this Bill a Commission which will have that expert knowledge, I feel very strongly indeed that there should be incorporated in this clause a provision that the Commission shall be consulted before there is any question of any regulation of importation of livestock and meat. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, after ("countries") insert ("and after consulting the Commission").— (The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe noble Earl's Amendment would require the Board of Trade to consult the Livestock Commission before making an order regulating imports. This Amendment is, as the noble Earl has said, somewhat concerned with the debate on the previous Amendment. I should, however, like to point out that the course proposed by the noble Earl is one which no one would 508 follow. I think we can all agree that the information which is at the disposal of one Department should be placed at the disposal of the others. The question is, what is the correct method by which that should be done? I am given to understand that it would be a wrong principle to ask that the Commission be consulted directly by the Board of Trade. It should be consulted through the Ministry of Agriculture, and then the Ministry of Agriculture would pass on any information that is necessary or required. It is upon that basis that we ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEWe seem to have arrived at rather a curious position. An Amendment was moved just now with which I have reason to believe a very large number of noble Lords were in entire agreement. I was going to suggest that, faute de mieux, we vote for this Amendment, although not wholly convincing on the very ground that the noble Earl has put forward—namely, the possible impropriety of communications and consultations between the Board of Trade and a body which to all intents and purposes is operating under another Government Department. But I am just wondering whether we could reasonably ask the noble Earl, in view of the very strong expressions of opinion that have been put forward in this Committee in the discussion on the previous Amendment, whether before the Report stage is reached, if not at the present time, he will be prepared to consider putting down an Amendment himself to the effect suggested in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
THE EARL OF RADNORWhat I forecast has come to pass. I cannot press this Amendment to a Division, as Lord O'Hagan did not press his to a Division, but I understand from the noble Lord in front of me that the intentions of the Government are as I think the majority of your Lordships desire—namely, that there should be this consultation. I would only point out to Lord Feversham that there is a road to a certain region which is paved with good intentions, and I am rather inclined to think that there is a habit of Government Departments, of fairly recent growth, to add to that pavement at a rather rapid rate. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI shall be glad to pass on the point raised by Lord Bledisloe to my right honourable friend, and raise it at a later stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "order," immediately preceding paragraph (a), to insert"(due regard being had in prescribing such period to considerations arising out of seasonal production and requirements)."The noble Lord said: My Amendment has already been partially moved by my noble friend below me but I would like to do it again, because I think it is of some importance and I believe it will have the sympathy of the noble Earl, although he may find himself precluded from saying so. We have had quotas before in this country, and these quotas of imports have extended over twelve months. It has been the custom of foreign countries, and the custom is quite natural, to use those quotas to suit their convenience entirely; that is to say, when they want to import in any special month they import quite regardless of the convenience of producers in this country. This Amendment aims at establishing some sort of principle that the convenience of producers, and also of consumers, in this country should be consulted, as well as the convenience of importers from foreign countries.
§ The case of meat is a curious example of that. There are times of the year when livestock which has been at grass comes on to the market, and at such times there is a sufficient supply of home-produced beef, I believe, to meet the needs of the whole country. It would seem proper, then, that the home producers should be entitled to supply the consumers in this country. But of course that is not the case because if it suits a foreign country, say Argentina, to import meat at that time they would have no consideration for the British farmer who is bringing his cattle off the grass on to the market. I move this Amendment in the hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept it, and to show at all events that that spirit will not be forgotten by either the Commission or by His Majesty's Government.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, after ("order") insert ("(due regard being had in prescribing such
510
period to considerations arising out of seasonal production and requirements)").— (Lord Cranworth.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEI would like to support this Amendment for an entirely different reason from that stated by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, and in doing so again I had hoped to obtain some support from the Benches opposite, but His Majesty's Opposition are conspicuous at the moment by their absence! If the words of this Amendment are intended to have general application, and to apply not only to the home producers but to those in our oversea Dominions, it seems to me that they would operate with justice in both directions, and incidentally supply the public with a reasonable amount of good meat from Empire sources at all times of the Year. After all, the bulk of the meat imported into this country comes from the Antipodes—from our own Dominions at the other end of the world—whose seasons are entirely different from ours. Incidentally I ought to mention, lest it be forgotten, that during the last four years there has sprung up a very valuable trade in chilled beef, as a result of successful experiments in the preservation of meat on board ship by carbon-dioxide, which has developed already in Australia to a large extent and is beginning to develop in New Zealand. Certain ships which used to ply between this country and Argentina are now transferred to the Australian and New Zealand meat trades, and it will be a reminder, if this Amendment is accepted, that there are seasonable supplies to the market of good meat of Empire origin, not only in our own country but also in our Dominions overseas. We have to bear in mind in all these matters that the more we appear to provide artificial assistance for our farming community, all the more suspicious will the consuming populations of our towns and cities become if prices are substantially increased. I hope, therefore, it will be possible to accept the Amendment in the interests not only of British meat producers but of meat producers in our overseas Empire.
§ LORD HASTINGSI would like to reinforce the arguments already advanced. Here again is the psychological reason for hoping that the Government will accept the Amendment. The agricultural community have from time to 511 time been deeply agitated by the disregard which has been shown of their own interests in their own country, by the permissive importation of quotas of produce at a time when their own produce comes in the largest quantities on to the market, and I recognise, and I think the Government will recognise, that the inclusion in the Bill of the words proposed really in fact carry with them no command or duty upon anybody of a kind which can operate to the disadvantage of the general construction of the Bill. They are permissive words. They merely draw the attention of the appropriate authority to the need for considering this particular matter. They will give satisfaction to the agricultural community by their inclusion, and can, I submit, do no possible harm to the structure of the Bill.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI do not think there is any real difference of opinion on this matter at all as to what it is desirable to do, any more really than there was in regard to the last two Amendments. It is purely a question of how far what we insert in an Act of Parliament shall be such a matter as definitely requires legislation, or such matters as in fact merely are instructions to a Committee or to a Minister as to how to carry on a task. As a matter of fact this is a matter which has always been very much in the forefront of the Government's mind, and the arrangements for the regulation of the imports of foreign chilled beef in recent years have, in fact, been operated in such a way as to ensure that a larger percentage reduction in the third and fourth quarters of the year, when supplies of home-killed beef are heaviest, does actually take place. Therefore for some time the import regulations have in fact been operated according to the intentions of this Amendment, and that will prove to your Lordships that in asking you not to insert this actual provision in the Bill it is merely a question of not wanting to insert unnecessary matter. If we should put it in, then it would be necessary to put in other considerations which should be in the minds of the Government, such as consumers' demand, market requirements, prices, and so on. All these matters have to be taken into consideration, and if we insert in the Bill one particular instruction all the other 512 matters that must be in the minds of the Government must be taken into consideration.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI regret that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I quite agree with the logical remarks made by the noble Earl, but, from the point of view of the agricultural community, the care with which these quotas have been dealt with has not been very apparent. It may be that there is going to be a change, and I am well aware that these words are only the expression of a pious hope. Naturally I shall not press them, and I will withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
(4) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall authorise the Board of Trade to regulate the importation of bacon.
§ The noble Earl said: Imports of bacon are at present regulated by Order under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, as a complement to the organisation of the marketing of home-produced bacon under the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Schemes, and it is not necessary, therefore, to include bacon within the scope of Part III of the present Bill. As the Bill now stands this point is dealt with in the definition clause, which provides that for the purposes of Part III "meat" does not include bacon.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe next three Amendments are either consequential or drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 10, line 17, leave out ("meat") and insert ("in relation to meat other than bacon").
§ Page 10, line 19, leave out ("meat") and insert ("such meat as aforesaid").
§ Page 10, line 22, after ("made") insert ("and approved").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
(6) In this section the expression 'bacon' includes hams.
§ The noble Earl said: For the purpose of the import regulation, bacon includes 513 ham. This Amendment merely makes it clear that ham as well as bacon are excluded from the provisions of Clause 2.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEMay I assume that if bacon and hams are excluded pork is not?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI am afraid I cannot answer that question without further notice. I shall be glad to let the noble Viscount know at a later stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 12:
§ Power of Board of Trade to obtain information as to stocks and importation of livestock, meat, etc.
§
12.—(1) The Boa rd of Trade, if they think it necessary or desirable so to do, either for the proper exercise of their powers under this Part of this Act or in connection with any international arrangements for controlling the export of livestock or meat to the United Kingdom, may by order—
(b) require any person carrying on in the United Kingdom the business of importing into the United Kingdom livestock, meat or any such commodity as aforesaid, to tarnish to the Board, so often and in such form as may be determined by or under the order, a return giving such information with respect to any livestock or meat or any such commodity, as the case may be, imported, or proposed to be imported, by him into the United Kingdom, as may be specified in the order.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 11, line 2, after ("information") insert ("as may be specified in the order")
§ Page 11, line 5, leave out ("as may be specified in the order").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "and shall place the information and statistics collated from such returns at the disposal of the Commission." The noble Lord said: It seems highly desirable that the information collated in accordance with the requirements of the Board of Trade should be put at the disposal of the Commission. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill in 514 the early stages of this discussion indicated the very important functions that the members of the Livestock Commission had to perform, both in advising and in assisting the Minister in the carrying through of the action under this Bill. Therefore, it would appear common sense that the information which had been collated should be available for members of the Livestock Commission.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe information obtained by the Board of Trade under Clause 12 will, of course, be of interest not only to that Department but to other Departments, to the Livestock Commission, and to the International Beef Conference. The information having been obtained it is obviously desirable that the utmost use should be made of it and the aggregate statistics will certainly be made available to the Commission. It is, however, quite unnecessary to embody in the Bill any specific instructions of the kind indicated in the Amendment. It is assumed that the subject matter of the Amendment is such an important factor that the information will be supplied by the Board of Trade to all the bodies that have relevant duties to perform, and it would only make the Bill somewhat cumbersome if these provisions were inserted in the Bill.
LORD O'HAGANAs I understand that this information will be put at the disposal of the Commission by the Board of Trade, I beg to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 13 [Incidental provisions as to orders under Part III]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("The") and insert ("Any").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 14:
§ General regulation of holding of livestock markets.
§ 14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section no premises in Great Britain other 515 than premises on which a market in respect of livestock was lawfully held at some time during the year ended on the thirtieth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, shall, on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be used for holding a market in respect of livestock, unless the premises are approved for the purpose by an order of the Commission for the time being in force, being an order made with the approval of the appropriate Minister:
§
Provided that this subsection shall not restrict—
(a) the use of a farm for the purpose of effecting at the farm any sale, by or on behalf of the occupier thereof, of livestock which, at the time of the sale, is being kept by the occupier or any sale of livestock being a sale incidental to a sale of the farm or to the termination of a tenancy thereof; or
§ (4) Any order under paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section may be revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner, and after the like consultation, as the original order; and, as soon as may be after any such order is made, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland shall cause public notice of the making of the order, and of the place where copies of the order may be obtained, to be given in such manner as they think best for informing persons affected.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, after ("year") insert ("which").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "August" and insert "November." The noble Earl said: This Amendment will defer from the 1st August to the 1st November, 1937, the date on and from which the use of premises as livestock markets will require the Commission's approval, unless the premises were so used in the year ended 30th November, 1936. In order to afford sufficient time for the Livestock Advisory Committee to be set up and for consultation to take place, it is necessary that an interval should elapse between the passing of the Bill into law, which we hope may be some time in July, and the date of operation of this clause. It is therefore proposed to postpone this date until November 1st this year.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("August") and insert ("November").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
516
§
LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out proviso (a) and insert:
(a) the use of a farm for the purpose of effecting at the farm—
§ The noble Lord said: This small Amendment is designed to remove from the restrictions one form of sale which I believe it is desirable to keep in, that is the collective sale of cattle. There will be at least two cases in which it is desirable. It is very common in some parts to have a collective sale of pedigree cattle. Two or three owners join together, and on the farm of one of them they sell a selection of pedigree cattle, of which one of them would not have enough to sell. Another case is where the owner of an attested herd is desirous of selling cattle, of which he has very small opportunities of sale, but if this Amendment goes through he could join with a neighbour or friend and they could have a sale of attested cattle on the farm. If this Amendment does not go through, sales of this eminently desirable kind will apparently be restricted. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Bill, or of His Majesty's Government, and I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out lines 31 to 37 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI should like to assure the noble Lord that such sales as he has referred to are already exempted from the need for approval by the words at present in the Bill. Paragraph (a) has been re-drafted so as to achieve the object that the noble Lord has in mind. That was done in another place, and I am informed that by virtue of these words farm sales of a bona-fide nature will be allowed to continue without requiring the specific approval of the Livestock Commission.
LORD SALTOUNIt is the custom, in the North of Scotland especially, for small people, when there is a displenishing sale, 517 to send in their stock and it is sold on their own behalf and not on behalf of the tenant of the farm. This gives to small farmers an opportunity of selling their stock without the expense of sending it to market, and these people deserve very special consideration because they have already been harmed by marketing schemes in other directions by the Government.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe Bill does provide for displenishing sales, to which, I know, neighbouring farmers in Scotland and also in the North of England send their stock. That case is covered by the words "livestock which, at the time of the sale, is being kept by the occupier."
§ LORD HASTINGSI am definitely not satisfied with that explanation. This matter has been submitted to legal authority, and it is suggested by that authority that these words are not sufficient; that the intention may be as the noble Earl describes it, but the effect is not the same. The words are "being kept by the occupier." What is being kept by the occupier? Only the man who pays for the keeping of the stock—
§ LORD HASTINGSIt depends entirely on the interpretation which is put on the word "kept," not on the words "at the time." The legal interpretation of the word ''kept" is "paid for." If a neighbour sends stock to his friend's farm to be sold by that friend, he will make himself responsible for the carrying to that farm of the necessary forage or for payment to the neighbour for the forage consumed by that stock, and he will therefore himself be keeping the stock and the occupier will not be keeping the stock. These words as drafted are not sufficient to cover the purpose intended by the Government themselves.
LORD SALTOUNIt is not a question of keeping the stock. In some cases the man himself drives his beasts across the fields to the sale and into the sale-yard and they are sold there right away.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThere is no difference whatever between the intention of the Amendment and of the Bill as at present drafted. It is, as Lord Hastings has said, merely a matter of 518 wording. I have been advised differently from the noble Lord, but I will inquire into the point raised before the next stage.
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEI hope that the noble Earl will take further advice on this subject because, when one looks for an interpretation of the expression "keeping stock," one naturally harks hack to Clause 3, where we have a certain category of persons intended to be eligible for the Advisory Committee who are described as ''persons carrying on in the United Kingdom the business of keeping livestock." Throughout the whole of the debate on that clause it was assumed that these were in fact livestock farmers who were in the habit of maintaining their own stock on their own farms. If we translate the words "keeping stock" according to the implications of the previous clause, it would appear that they would not cover the case of the man who has, for the time being, on his farm other people's stock with a view to a combined sale. In fact, it would appear to me, as this clause is at present framed, that no farmer who has a collective sale such as is so common in East Anglia would be able to get an exemption unless the latter part of the proviso were put into effect, and he obtained a special order by the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will obtain further legal advice on this subject, because the organisation to which I have the honour to belong has taken legal advice and has been advised differently.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI accept the assurance of the noble Earl that he really will examine this and bring forward some words that will satisfy us both, not only him but the association to which I belong. I have no particular admiration for lawyers, who frequently disagree, but in this case I fancy ours is right and his is wrong. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), after proviso (a), to insert:
(b) the use of any premises for the sale of breeding stock; or
§ The noble Lord said: I do not think this particular case can be covered by the arguments which were given in reply 519 to my noble friend's Amendment. It is obviously undesirable that sales of breeding stock should be in any way restricted, and it is equally absurd that the breeder of stock, before he can hold a sale upon his premises or upon any premises, should require to obtain a special licence from the authorities mentioned in the Bill. Breeding stock are not concerned in this measure at all, and there is no object or value in putting restrictions upon the trade in that class of stock. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 11, line 37, at end insert:
(" (b) the use of any premises for the sale of breeding stock; or").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThere is, I think, general objection to including specific exemptions, on this account, that once you open the door to any particular type of stock you would have representatives breeding another type requiring the same exemption. In this particular case, the operation of the exemption would be rendered impracticable by the difficulty of proving whether stock of all classes was breeding stock or not. One could not tell what was for breeding and what was not necessarily for breeding. There is another objection—namely, that the auctioneers might say that the purpose of Part IV was not being carried out, that instead of endeavouring to improve the conditions of sales by auction at markets you would be diverting trade from its proper channel by these exemptions, which would not be limited to the single case raised by the noble Lord. As a farmer, I entirely agree that the farm sale, as such, should be exempted, whether it is of breeding stock or of stores or any other type of livestock, but if you were to give a particular exemption to breeding stock alone I think it would undermine the main purpose embodied in Part IV of the Bill and, as I have said, you would open the door to the making of similar provision for other types of livestock. I hope I have made the case sufficiently clear to the noble Lord.
§ LORD HASTINGSThe noble Earl has made it perfectly clear. I think his arguments are sound, but I believe mine are sounder, and I will endeavour to explain to him why. He says that this would open the door to all manner of 520 applications. I agree. Let us assume that the power given in this Bill to the licensing authority was withheld. Now most breeder societies arrange at some time during the course of the year for the sale of the stock of their particular breed. There is no question whatever that any stock coming to such a sale is other than breeding stock. Females sent into an ordinary market are, of course, not accepted as breeding stock. They will be adapted to any purpose that their purchaser wishes, either as stores or as breeding animals, but they will not be accepted under the term of "breeding stock." At a breeding stock sale nothing can appear which is not breeding stock. The society which desires to hold this sale—a commonplace occurrence up and down the country—has got to apply to the proper authority for a licence to hold a sale, and there is not much object in setting up an authority for granting a licence of that character unless you give to that authority the power to withhold the licence; and the licence, we must remember, is going to be subject to the advice of an Advisory Committee which is not going to have upon it a majority of the producers of livestock.
Here we get back to the argument at which this debate began a couple of hours ago. It is because the Advisory Committee, which is going to deal with such matters as I have mentioned, is not going to have the majority upon it which we hold it should have, that we are suspicious of the actions of the authority which is to be given the power to withhold these licences. It rather sounds like the story of the house that jack built. None the less these are the facts, and we want to exclude from the purview of this authority the legitimate, properly organised, bona-fide breeding stock sales, and not to have them made subject to the permission of an authority which may operate in a manner inimical to the farming community and be more concerned to suit the advantages of other sections of the community—auctioneers and so forth. I hope the noble Earl will consider that this is not a factious Amendment. I am sure both he and I agree that these bona-fide sales ought not to be subject to any kind of tiresome, troublesome restrictions, and I hope he may be able to reconsider what he has already said.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThere are just two points that I should like to refer to arising out of the noble Lord's statement. In the first place, the noble Lord quoted subsection (3) of the clause, and said the application for a licence is referred by the Commission to the Livestock Advisory Committee. I would ask him to read on to the next tine, line 26, "and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned." In the case of a sale of breeding livestock that is very often organised after an annual sale, I think that it is the representatives of the interests concerned who will have the first consideration of the Committee rather than any other body in being. I think we must assume—and that is where perhaps the fundamental difference lies between the noble Lord and myself—that the members of the Livestock Commission, and indeed the representatives of interested bodies on the Livestock Advisory Committee, are reasonable people, and that they will not withhold consent from any reasonable claim. There is one further point. If a sale of breeding stock constituted a market, and if it was held in the year before the 30th November, 1936, then its continuance on the same premises without the necessity of seeking the approval of the Commission is already provided for in paragraphs (1) to (4). As the noble Lord has referred to the private sale, which is not an annual sale, that goes on from year to year, then that case comes under subsection (1), and is automatically freed from applying for a licence.
§ LORD HASTINGSI think the noble Earl is correct in that matter, and I am not disposed to press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "public." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and that following are drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("public").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEMay I with all respect ask what is the difference between "giving a public notice" and "publishing a notice"? That appears to be the purport of the Amendments in the name of the noble Earl. For 522 instance, in my own village I look at the ordinary advertisement hoardings and look also at the church door for such notifications, and I may wonder, in these matters, whether when the notice comes to be "published" as distinct from "public notice being given," the church door or the advertisement hoardings will be used for this purpose.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe explanation of this Amendment is that it is intended to make the wording of this subsection uniform with that used in the Third Schedule, Part I, on page 52.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("given") and insert ("published").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall be agreed to?
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRMay I point out that the words my noble friend asked should be put in the Bill in Clause 11 are allowed to be kept in Clause 14, and I cannot understand why the words were resisted on Clause 11.
§ Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 15 [Livestock markets orders]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMMy two Amendments to this clause are little more than drafting, and I should like to refer to them together. Their purpose is to ensure that the Commission would consult any ad hoc bodies set up for the purpose of representing the interests affected by a proposed livestock markets order.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 31, leave out ("those") and insert ("any such").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("the said") and insert ("any such").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 16:
§ Matters for which provision may be made by livestock markets orders.
§
16. A livestock markets order may make provision—
(2) requiring the Commission to pay, in such class of cases, and according to such
523
principles, as may be determined by the order, compensation to any person for any loss or damage which, by reason of the operation of the order, he may suffer in respect of his interest in any land used or appropriated for the holding of markets, in respect of his right to hold markets or in respect of his right to carry on the business of effecting sales by auction;
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (2), to leave out "by auction" and insert "of livestock." The noble Earl said: There is a whole series of Amendments down all of which really affect the same question. There are three at the bottom of page 6, two on Clause 17, and also one on Clause 56, page 47, and, if your Lordships will permit me, I would like to deal with the whole question as one and settle it. There is an assumption—it is not stated so in the Bill, but there is an assumption—that the only method of sale in a market is an auction. That is not so in actual fact. At any market there are probably sales by auction, in fact I know of no market where there are not sales by auction, but there are also sales on commission by private treaty. There is also the dealer who buys very often for immediate resale to make a profit, and of course there is direct selling by the producer. I do not want—these Amendments are designed to avoid it—in any way to attempt to touch direct sale by the producer: I feel that that is much the simplest and most economical way of selling. But I would point out that the auctioneer has certain obligations laid on him. He is—of course this is not an obligation but a privilege—entitled to compensation under certain circumstances, but he also has to make contributions to defray expenses and he has to furnish estimates and returns, accounts and other information. I submit that it is hard that the whole burden of these obligations should fall upon auctioneers alone, and not on those other people who are also conducting the business of a go-between, if I may use that expression.
§ It seems to me also to be a very definite inducement to take a step, not forwards but backwards, and to persuade people to go in more and more for dealers' sales and sales otherwise than by auction, thereby defeating the object of this part of the Bill. I would also put forward this point: You may have three or four auctioneers in one market town, and it 524 may be decided—probably quite rightly—that two of them should cease to function and should be compensated. There is nothing, so far as I can see, to prevent the two who have been dispossessed and compensated for being dispossessed from still maintaining a connection with livestock producers and selling on commission, so getting the best of both worlds and destroying, as I say, the whole object of this livestock marketing part of the Bill. I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say in reply. I appreciate that there are possible difficulties in the operation of any part of the Bill which tends to bring these people within its purview, but I do think that, with the Amendment I have put down to Clause 56, at page 47, line 26, the livestock producer will not be hurt by bringing into this clause salesmen other than auctioneers, whom I think it is desirable to bring in if the Bill is to operate successfully.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, leave out ("by auction") and insert ("of livestock").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe Amendments to Clauses 16 and 17 which the noble Earl has put on the Paper are undoubtedly of an interesting character, more especially as the point was not raised, as far as I am aware, in another place. I gather that the purpose of the Amendments he wishes to make in Clause 16 is to include among the persons who will receive or contribute towards compensation persons who sell livestock other than by auction, that is, dealers who sell by private treaty in the market either livestock owned by themselves or livestock owned by farmers. The noble Earl has himself said that there may be some difficulty in including these people.
The main objection to the Amendment is that it would be quite impossible in the case of dealers, and also farmers who are mainly dealers, 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. Moreover, a person who made a practice of selling by private treaty in the market that was closed could transfer his business without loss or damage thereto to any other market that was left open in the area. A dealer is not bound to his place 525 of business in the same way as the auctioneer. It is because of these difficulties of being able to trace him, so to speak, that it would not be at all feasible either to get him to contribute towards compensation or to give him compensation.
Under Clause 17 there should be no question of clashing in the case of private sales. All that is necessary can be done under that clause by regulations which provide for the fixing of times at which markets, whether by auction or private treaty, may be held. As regards charges for the private treaty sale, if these sales are made on commission any check on charges made by individual dealers is a matter of agreement between the owner of the animal and the dealer who is selling the animal for him. There is no such difficulty in the case of sales by auction. In the case of dealers operating on their own behalf no question of charges arises. The charges referred to in paragraph (b) are not charges in respect of sales effected, but merely charges or tolls made in respect of animals brought to the premises for the purpose of sale; that is, for animals "using" the market premises. Such charges may be fixed or limited whether the market is an auction market or a private treaty market.
THE EARL OF RADNORMay I ask the noble Earl whether what he means is that they are market charges and not auctioners' fees?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThey are tolls for using the market. I hope that the difficulties I have enumerated will show the noble Earl how impracticable it would be to include the private treaty dealers and farmer dealers to whom he has referred.
THE EARL OF RADNORI am very grateful to the noble Earl for his detailed answer. Of course I am not nearly so much concerned with the question of any compensation that it may seem equitable to pay to such people; I am much more concerned with the contribution that they ought to make to any advantage derived by the market. I am also concerned with the valuable contribution that they ought to be able to offer in these very necessary returns, and so on, of what passes through their hands. After all, the auctioneers have already to provide various returns, and it would add to the 526 knowledge of the livestock markets generally in the county if these people could be roped in to provide the information that they have as well. In view, however, of what the noble Earl has said—and I appreciate that the difficulties are, or at any rate seem to be, almost insuperable for the moment—I should like, if the Committee will permit me, to withdraw this series of Amendments, and if I can see any way in which at least part of their object can be achieved, I may perhaps bring the matter up at the next stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 17 [Livestock markets bye-laws]:
§
THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert after subsection (3):
(4) When the Commission first decide that livestock market byelaws are desirable in relation to any premises generally or to any class of premises in any area, they shall forthwith serve a written notice of their decision (specifying the said area and the premises or class of premises to which it is proposed such byelaws shall relate and the general nature of the said byelaws on such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of local authorities and other interests likely to be affected by the byelaws, and shall give those bodies a reasonable opportunity of making to the Commission representations with respect to terms of the said proposed byelaws; and the Commission shall, in settling the terms in which the draft byelaws shall be published in accordance with paragraph I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, take into consideration any such representation as aforesaid which may have been made to them by the said bodies and also consult the Livestock Advisory Committee.
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is on the same sort of lines as an Amendment that was accepted in the other place to Clause 15 (2), which deals with live-stock market orders. This Amendment contains a lot of words, but it actually provides that the Livestock Advisory Committee shall be consulted before a livestock market order is brought forward. It is suggested that a similar provision should be made regarding livestock market by-laws. Noble Lords will see in the Bill that by-laws may—I cannot remember the exact wording—either be general or may apply to any class of premises or any part thereof; in fact, bylaws may be of any form or kind. By laws have a very considerable importance; they are very detailed things, and they need the detailed expert and intimate 527 knowledge that can only be provided by a technical body such as the Livestock Advisory Committee. I noted in the other place that the Minister of Agriculture was not unfavourably disposed towards the Amendment, except that he felt that it might be rather a cumbersome procedure for such things as by-laws. I would, however, suggest that by-laws need that technical and expert advice, and that this Bill provides only one technical body, the Livestock Advisory Committee, which can afford that help. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThis Amendment would in fact apply to livestock market by-laws the initial procedure envisaged for livestock market orders in Clause 15 (2). As the noble Earl has told your Lordships, that subsection was introduced as the result of representations in another place. A statutory provision ensuring initial consultation having been conceded in the one case, it may not seem at first quite easy to resist the contention that it should also be conceded in this case. I should like to repeat, however, what my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said in another place, and to assure the noble Earl that the consultation which his Amendment is designed to secure will in fact and in practice take place in the majority of cases. But by-laws are entirely different from the wider and more permanent proposals of livestock market orders, for they deal with the details of management. There must be preliminary consultation before the idea of a by-law can ever be formulated. These by-laws, whether they be national or particular to any district, must originate from the country. If they are of general application they will be put forward by the national associations representing the different interests affected, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations or the County Councils' Association, which represent the local authorities. If they have a special application, then the incentive for them will come from the districts themselves. The movement is bound to start from the locality to which it is to apply. A by-law is, after all, only a matter of words. It is, as the Minister has said, legislation of a very minor character, and it can only 528 be judged on its text. It is the text that matters, and the discussion between the people concerned can take place more valuably after they have had the contents of the by-laws before them. Under the Fourth Schedule the Commission must give at least two months' notice of their intention to make a by-law. I am therefore afraid that I am unable to satisfy the noble Earl by accepting this Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI do not know whether my noble friend found any difficulty in following the noble Earl's reply, but I certainly did, and I hope that if he withdraws the Amendment he will reserve rights for the Report stage.
THE EARL OF RADNORI am very grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, but I do not know that I quite appreciate all his arguments. The Bill says, after all, that the Commission has to publish these by-laws—or rather, let everybody concerned know of them—so that representations can be made. It is also desirable, however, that the Livestock Advisory Committee should be consulted. One wants some continuity in these by-laws throughout the country. You may say that you will get that because they all pass through the Commission; but the Commission are not the technical or skilled body. The noble Earl also quoted words of the Minister in another place—"Legislation of a very minor character; dealing almost entirely in words." But I would say that, though a by-law may be, from the point of view of a legislator, legislation of a very minor character, yet these by-laws may affect very closely indeed the livelihood of a lot of people who are working and earning their living and have their money invested in markets up and down the country. I do not propose to press the Amendment to a Division, but I should like to reserve the right to consider in detail what the noble Earl has said and, if necessary, to raise the point again at the next stage. I did hope, however, that I was going to get a concession here. We have had nothing out of the Government yet, but I hope we may get something before the Committee is finished.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 17 agreed to.
§ Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
529§ Clause 22:
§ Interpretation and extent of Part IV.
§ 22.—(1) In this Part of this Act the expression "owner" means, in relation to any premises, the person who is for the time being receiving the rack rent of those premises, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for another person, or who would so receive that rack rent if the premises were let at a rack rent; and for the purposes of this subsection the rack rent of any premises shall be taken to be a rent not being less than two-thirds of the rent at which the premises might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free from all usual tenant's rates and taxes, and deducting therefrom the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command such rent.
§
THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to add to subsection (1):
Provided that where under any livestock markets order any expenses are recoverable by the Commission from a person as being the owner of any premises and that person proves that he—
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 foregoing provisions from recovering the whole of any such expenses 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: I think this possibly is an Amendment which the noble Earl can accept without any qualms of conscience. The Bill provides in Clause 22 that a trustee or agent should be responsible for certain charges. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand the situation a trustee or agent cannot be made responsible for the payment of a sum greater than the money that he has in hand as a trustee or agent of that particular subject. This clause states quite definitely that the trustee or agent shall be responsible for the expenses recoverable by the Commission. It is suggested in the Amendment that he should be responsible only in so far as he has got the money in hand, and that the actual owner should be responsible for any balance remaining over. The precedent is taken from the Housing Act of 1936, where in fact a 530 trustee or agent is responsible only for the amount of money he has in hand, and if in that particular case the local authority cannot get enough out of him it cannot go anywhere else to get it. I have actually followed the precedent of the Public Health Act, which contains almost the exact wording that I have put in my Amendment, and I think that as a matter of principle it should be conceded, because it is undoubtedly hard that a trustee or agent should be made responsible for a sum larger than he derives from his principal.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 11, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThis is a legal point and I am advised that the two Statutes referred to by the noble Earl, the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Housing Act, 1936, do not in this case form a suitable precedent, as he has been led to believe. Under Clause 16 the only person interested in any premises from whom the Commission can recover a contribution to be made in respect of these premises is the owner of the premises as defined in Clause 22. The Bill was advisedly drawn in this way because of the difficulty of fixing liability, vis-à-vis the Commission, on a person other than the owner, having regard to the complicated way in which market premises are sometimes leased piecemeal, as the noble Earl said, to different tenants. Therefore in these circumstances it seemed best to make the owner alone liable to the Commission, and to provide further, as is done in Clause 19, for enabling the owner to pass on the whole or part of his liability to other interested persons, if and so far as equity might seem to a County Court to demand. This, as the noble Earl has said, is a very technical point, and I should be glad to give him an assurance that it will be considered before the Report stage, if that will satisfy him.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMay I draw attention to another precedent, which occurs in the Tithe Act?
THE EARL OF RADNORI cannot say that I am entirely satisfied. I appreciate the noble Earl's assurance that he will give it attention before the next stage, but this is a matter, if I remember aright, which was rather thoroughly thrashed out in another place, and the Ministry 531 hardened their hearts against it there. Much as I appreciate the noble Earl's assurance, I do not think I ought to let the matter go further without testing the feeling of the House.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI remember that this matter was down on the Amendment Paper in another place, but it was never moved, and so this is a new point.
THE EARL OF RADNORIt would have been called on in another place if the Minister had wished it. Honestly, I can see no objection to it. The Commission are not going to lose money by it, and it does relieve a very estimable body of people, such as agents and trustees, from a financial responsibility which is not rightly imposed upon them by the Bill, and which is, I think, contrary to precedent in matters affecting trustees and agents. I trust that the noble Earl will say that he will put the Amendment in the Bill, and then if he can produce valid objection to it on the Report stage I shall be prepared to consider it. That is the only way I am prepared—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMay I make a suggestion which may meet the noble Earl's difficulty? I understand that, after this Amendment, we are going to adjourn the debate until Monday. I do not think it will have much effect on the length of our discussion if we adjourn now, and I therefore suggest that without 532 the Ministry giving any pledge we should adjourn the debate. That will give the Ministry an opportunity of looking into the matter further.
§ LORD RANKEILLOURMay I move, therefore, that the House do now resume?
§ Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.