§ Order of the Day for the House again 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.]
§ CLAUSE 22 [Interpretation and extent of Part IV]:
§
Debate resumed on the: Amendment, moved by the Earl of Radnor, 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—
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM)I have had an opportunity, since the debate on this Amendment was adjourned last Thursday, of further considering the point raised by the noble Earl in his Amendment. As I said on Thursday, the point of the Amendment is technical, and it is one which had not been discussed during proceedings in another place. On further examination, it is felt that the noble Earl has established his case for an Amendment of the Bill, but I am advised that the appropriate place for such an Amendment would be Clause 19, which the Committee has already passed. May I therefore give the noble Earl my assurance that an appropriate Amendment, which will fully deal with this point, will be put down for the Report stage? I hope that, with this assurance, the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNORMay I express my gratitude to the noble Earl? I have had an opportunity of seeing what is proposed. It entirely meets the case, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 22 agreed to.
§ Clause 23:
§ Control of slaughtering in connection with experimental operation of central slaughter-houses.
§ 23.—(1) If, with respect to any arrangements made for the provision of a slaughterhouse on any premises in Great Britain, or for the alteration of a slaughter-house provided on any such premises, the Commission are of opinion, having regard to the situation of the premises and to the manner in which it is proposed under the arrangements that the slaughter-house should be designed, equipped and managed,—
- (a) that the carrying out of the said arrangements is likely to promote efficiency or economy in the slaughtering of livestock and to secure that, in connection with the slaughtering of livestock at the slaughterhouse, the carcases and meat of livestock slaughtered thereat are treated in a satisfactory manner and the other products of such slaughtering are utilised to the best advantage, and
- (b) that a scheme under this Part of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a slaughter-house scheme") is desirable in connection with the carrying out of the said arrangements,
§ (2) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, not more than three schemes shall be confirmed under this section:
§ Provided that a scheme so confirmed may be amended by a subsequent scheme made, submitted and confirmed in like manner and subject to the like conditions.
§ (3) A slaughter-house scheme shall be of no effect unless confirmed by order of the appropriate Minister, and where such a scheme is so confirmed, the scheme shall, subject to the following provisions of this Act, come into operation at the same time as the order confirming it.
§ (4) An order confirming a slaughter-house scheme shall set forth the scheme in a schedule to the order, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after the order is made, and if either House of Parliament, within the next thirty days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, the scheme shall thereupon cease to have effect.
§ (5) The provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the submission and confirmation of slaughter-house schemes.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "section," to insert "one of which shall provide that the slaughter-house which by virtue of the scheme is to be deemed to be a central slaughter-house shall be conducted on co-operative principles." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is one of very considerable importance. Indeed, from the point of view of the industry, it is the most important Amendment I have put forward. When this particular Part of the Bill was argued before various agricultural bodies prior to its appearing in Bill form, the line of argument always adopted was this: "At the present moment we have all these small slaughterhouses and there is very great waste. Many of the articles that might be used are not there. With a big slaughter-house and marketing facilities, and a big body in charge of practical business men, there 537 would be a very considerable profit arising from the sale of by-products of which, at the present moment, the farmer gets no share. By getting that share he will be able to get a further price for his meat, and to that extent it will help him very much." I have heard that argued several times, and I have always agreed with it. But I regret to say that under the Bill as it now stands I believe it is quite impossible for the producer to get any advantage whatever, and for this reason. There is no power under the Bill for the slaughter-house to make any change in the methods by which the producer gets rid of his products. As he does now, he will bring his animal to the market; he will sell it there; it will be bought either by a butcher or by a dealer, and it will then become the property of that man. Any profits arising from the production of officials will be returned to the owner—that is to say, the butcher or dealer—the producer will get no share.
§ I venture to suggest that this clause as it stands is merely a method of subsidising the middleman, and I suggest to your Lordships that the middleman requires no subsidy from Government funds. He does himself fairly well now. Moreover, he has this advantage over the producer, that if he does not think he is getting enough money it is up to him to charge more for his services, and he invariably does so. He has another advantage still; if he does not like it he can go out of business; but the producer cannot go out of business. I do think it is a wrong method to put public funds at the disposal of the middleman. This particular question of large abattoirs is no new one. It has been debated by practically every body connected with agriculture for a great many years, and always on the lines that I submitted to your Lordships at first. I would recall to your Lordships the fact, if my memory is right, that so long ago as 1928 the Council of Agriculture for England and Wales, which is the only body representative of the three partners in the agricultural industry, the owner, the tenant-farmer, and the agricultural worker, unanimously recommended the adoption of a system of large slaughterhouses on co-operative principles; and it was on co-operative principles, and on cooperative principles only, that they recommended the adoption of the scheme. The same, I think, has been done by all the other great bodies that have considered this question.
538§ I would also bring to the attention of your Lordships the fact that in Denmark the system of large slaughter-houses has been in general use for some time, and it has been very successful. If my information is right, I believe that very nearly 100 per cent. of those slaughterhouses are conducted on co-operative principles. It may be said by the noble Earl: "It is all very well talking about co-operative principles and co-operative slaughter-houses, but where are we going to get the people to carry them out?" I would make a suggestion. There are scattered about the country various farmers' co-operative societies. There is a very big one in the Eastern Counties, of which I have the honour to be President, which has a turnover of over £1,000,000 and returns to its members satisfactory services and, in the majority of years, a handsome bonus. I have no doubt there are many others. I have not the least idea whether they will take up that suggestion, but that is the sort of body which should perform one of the three experiments. After all, my Amendment does not ask for very much. The general idea was that all the slaughterhouses should be co-operative, and all that my Amendment asks is that one of the three experimental slaughter-houses should be conducted on the principle on which everyone thought the whole lot would be conducted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 13, at end insert ("one of which shall provide that the slaughter-house which by virtue of the scheme is to be deemed to be a central slaughter-house shall be conducted on co-operative principles").—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEI venture most sincerely to hope that the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture will see his way to accept this Amendment. In my judgment it is by far the most important Amendment appearing on the Paper, and is in fact, if I may venture to say so, a test—I should almost say an acid test—of the sincerity of the Government, and particularly of the Department of Agriculture, in regard to the long and much-proclaimed principle of co-operation as being the true salvation of the British farmer in regard to his business. I suppose my mind will carry me back over as long a period as that of any member of this House in relation to the activities of what we used formerly to call the Board of Agriculture and we now call the Min- 539 istry of Agriculture, and I cannot remember a single head of that Department who has not put into the forefront as the secret of the economic salvation of the British farmer, co-operation—"Co-operate in buying, co-operate in selling, co-operate in your credit, co-operate in transport, cooperate in every possible way if you want to gain for yourselves a fair proportion of the value of the article that you are putting on the market." We have been repeatedly urged to look to all other countries who have in a measure agricultural prosperity to discover there that the secret of the relative success of the agricultural community has been education combined with co-operation, and co-operation has been deemed even more important than education if the farmer is to make a reasonable income out of his business.
There is here involved, first of all, a question of principle; and, secondly, a question of practicability. I cannot believe that the noble Earl will rise in his place presently and tell us that the principle at any rate is not as near to the heart of his chief and himself as it has been near the heart and convictions of all his predecessors. I am more than ever distressed to see the extraordinary paucity of representation of other sections of the House as demonstrated by the emptiness of those Benches, and I say so with some emphasis on this occasion, because those of us who have been in any sense Protectionists have always been told by representatives of the Free Trade Party that the secret of agricultural prosperity was not to be found in duties or subsidies or other protective assistance on the part of the State, but above all in co-operation amongst agricultural producers. Well, it is unfortunate that at any rate the Liberal Benches are not occupied, because I feel sure that no one could occupy those Benches and listen to this debate without rising to support and certainly to vote in favour of this Amendment.
I hope the noble Earl is going to accept this Amendment, but he may possibly say: "Well, after all, it is desirable in principle; here is undoubtedly a grand opportunity of showing farmers how they can get, by co-operation, a larger proportion of the profit that ought to come to them out of their legitimate business, but it cannot be incorporated in this clause as a practicable suggestion." The 540 noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has quite properly pointed to at least one organisation in England that ought to be, and I should imagine would be, only too ready to shoulder this particular responsibility in regard to a co-operative experiment. The Eastern Farmers' Co-operative Society is the largest farmers' co-operative society in this country, and carries on an immense business. It has a large capital and many different ramifications of co-operative activity, in which it is outstandingly successful. We, in the West of England, have a similar body known as the Western Farmers' Cooperative Society, for which I cannot speak directly, but I have every reason to believe that they would be prepared to be parties to the experiment if it is not considered either desirable or possible to initiate such an experiment in the Eastern Counties. But even assuming that neither of these bodies were thought suitable or they were disinclined to be parties to the experiment. I have every reason to believe that if those who are operating this particular experiment were to enter into conference with the livestock owners in the area in which the experiment is tried they would find most hearty co-operation in such an effort, knowing perfectly well that it must be to their own financial advantage to participate in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has referred to Denmark. He might have referred to several other Continental countries as having carried on with success on behalf of the farmers cooperative slaughtering and butchering. Perhaps I may be allowed to give your Lordships a quite useful illustration from a country within the British Empire known as New Zealand. There are in New Zealand several slaughtering houses, or as we call them freezing houses or freezing factories, run by the farmers on co-operative lines. The largest and most successful of them is situated in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Another is at Hawkes Bay, in the eastern part of the North Island; there is another in Canterbury; the co-operative farmers freezing house just outside Christchurch in the South Island; and there is yet another in the province of Southland. They are all operating successfully and it must be to the enormous advantage of the farmer that the butchering of his livestock is carried out on co-operative principles. I want 541 further to add that there are other instances in New Zealand of co-operative slaughter-houses which are partly owned on a co-operative principle by the farmers and are partly vested in the large butchering companies.
If it is difficult to initiate an experiment of this sort depending solely upon the farming community, I suggest that the noble Earl may like to know of the possibility of combining, at any rate at the outset, farmers' interests with ordinary butchering interests in order to give the farmers at least a chance of coming in on co-operative lines so far as their own interest extends and deriving the very marked advantage which they would derive. I venture to hope that the noble Earl will give sympathetic consideration to this particular Amendment, and if he is unable to accept it in its present form that he will give us some idea of how it may be framed at a later stage, so that we can say that for the first time, as far as I know, in English history the Government have had an opportunity of definitely including the principle of cooperation in a purely Agricultural Bill and have grasped that opportunity.
§ LORD HASTINGSI think it is desirable to make quite clear to your Lordships that this Amendment and the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend are closely related and have a joint purpose. Under the Bill every one of the slaughter-houses is to be of the same type. The Amendment which my noble friend Lord Cranworth has moved proposes that one of them shall be run on a co-operative basis, and he will move later that a second should be run on a basis which would enable the slaughterhouse company, if I can use that term, to purchase direct from the producer, leaving the third as is proposed in the Bill—namely, a type which will act only as an agency to the butchering trade. That is the type of slaughter-house the Bill proposes. The purchaser from a producer, who will normally be a butcher dealer, will use the slaughter-house compulsorily for the slaughter of the beasts that he has bought. From that slaughterhouse he will recover the meat and such of the officials as it is agreed he shall have, and there will be the residue of the offals, the kind which it is not easy for him to take away, which will be sold to the advantage primarily of the slaughter-house itself and in the secondary sense, no 542 doubt, to the advantage of the butcher who has sent his beasts to be slaughtered there. But in no circumstance will the producer get anything from the economies which this new type of central slaughterhouse is designed to create and make available.
It may be said that the butcher dealer in buying from the producer will, in the course of trade, find it necessary to pay to the producer a better price than he has hitherto paid for the beasts he has to buy, for the reason that the producer will know that in due time the butcher dealer will himself receive a better price for the residual products than before. That, of course, is optimistic in the highest degree. Those of us who are acquainted with agricultural trading—and most of us are so acquainted—will know that the producer may use all the blandishments of which he may be the master but he will get more pence than shillings from the butcher dealer on the ground I have quoted. By all means have an experiment of the type the Bill is designed to introduce. Let us see how this particular kind of slaughter-house works. My noble friend is not proposing to do away with that type. He is proposing that one shall remain as planned in the Bill. But the Amendment which he has moved and the Amendment which he will move later, are designed to extend the scope of that experiment and to let the country have the advantage of the experiment of three different types of slaughter-house at the same time.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill will hardly need telling that this Amendment and the one to follow have not been put on the Paper as a happy method of irritating the Government. They have been put on the Paper as the result of great thought given to the subject by experienced agriculturists who believe that this particular method of experimentation would be more satisfactory than the single type of experimentation proposed by the Bill. I do not propose to repeat the argument which my noble friend Lord Cranworth used. He has expressed himself as well as or better than anybody else could have explained what he had in mind. I wish to amplify what he said by pleading that here and now is an opportunity for widening the scope of the Bill and giving an opportunity for comparing one type with the other so that eventually His Majesty's 543 Government, the agricultural industry and the public at large may know for certain which of the three types is best and be able to adopt which is of the greatest advantage to the producer and simultaneously to the consumer.
Those are the only two people who matter. No one is concerned to promote the interests of the middleman. He is singularly well able to look after himself. The producer is not so well able and the consumer is not so well able to look after himself. Here is an opportunity to get together in the way co-operative societies have got together. I trust that when the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, replies, he will realise that this is a most serious argument, which has behind it a great weight of agricultural opinion; and I very much hope that he will be able to allow that the insertion of this Amendment in the Bill will work to the advantage of all parties concerned. I beg to support my noble friend.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThose noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, have had as their underlying motive the need for the producers of the country to co-operate and take advantage of the slaughtering proposals provided by the Bill—to get together and see whether producers themselves, acting collectively, can operate a scheme in order to provide benefit to producers of fat stock. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, giving emphasis to the need for co-operation, said that I, as representative of His Majesty's Government, might make objection to the Amendment partly on the ground of principle and partly on that of practicability. But I can see in no respect how, on the question of principle and indeed on that of practicability, there is that great variance of opinion that the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Cranworth, have believed to exist between agricultural opinion and His Majesty's Government.
The whole of Part V is in contrast to the preceding Part, Part IV, which deals with the reform of the livestock markets, inasmuch as, whereas Part IV is concerned with providing a permanent comprehensive policy for the reform of markets, Part V is merely a limited experiment. It seems, however, that noble Lords are thinking on the lines of the De La Warr Report, to which either the 544 noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, or the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred: the Report of the Committee which was set up under the Economic Advisory Committee and which recommended upon the basis of a national scheme, a large-scale reform in slaughtering. We feel that there should be a free field and no favour to any one who wishes to propose schemes under the slaughter-house proposals. If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, were accepted, freedom of choice would be lost and a dangerous precedent would be created. I do not know whether this Committee will agree with me when I say that, as far as this scheme can be visualised, it is quite impossible at this stage to say whether a scheme on the lines of the co-operative principle will be forthcoming or not. If it is forthcoming, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent the Livestock Commission, on the suggestion of the co-operating bodies concerned, from formulating a scheme on that basis and recommending it to the Minister. If, on the other hand, that particular type of producer is not represented, then the effect of the Amendment would be restrictive rather than widening.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that the purpose of the Amendment was to extend the scope of slaughter-houses. As I understand it, Clause 23 is at the service of any body of persons wishing to formulate a slaughter-house scheme, and if you are going to limit it to one scheme for local authorities, another scheme for the co-operative producer elements, and another scheme for another particular type, it may well happen that it would be found later that any such restriction had excluded some other important section. As the Bill is drafted, the way is open to any person or body of persons to prepare a scheme for submission to the Livestock Commission, and if one scheme were based on co-operative principles, it would, I am confident, receive the very fullest consideration. This is a matter for consideration in connection with individual schemes, and I would submit that it has no place in an enabling Bill. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has said in another place, it is not the Government who propose to initiate these experiments, nor is it suggested that the Commission should initiate them. The Commission can only consider the proposals put before them. If no proposals are submitted 545 the Commission, no action can be taken without further legislation. If, however, proposals are put forward which appear to the Commission to offer reasonable prospect of a satisfactory experiment, then the Bill proposes that the necessary steps should be taken by means of a slaughterhouse scheme to ensure that the experiment is conducted under conditions which will enable an adequate test to be made of the working of the type of abattoir which has not, up to now, been tried out in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has referred to the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, and has said that the two Amendments should be taken in conjunction. The purport of the next Amendment is that a central slaughterhouse shall have power to purchase livestock.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI would remind the noble Earl that I have not moved that Amendment yet.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI hoped that as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, devoted three-quarters of his speech to the next Amendment, then, if the Committee wished the two to be considered together, that course might be taken. If, however, the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, would prefer it, I am perfectly prepared to deal with his second Amendment after he has moved it.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI consider them quite different.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMSo do I. As the noble Lord who is moving the next Amendment would prefer the discussion upon it to take place after he has moved it, I shall be very pleased to acquiesce in his wish. To return to the Amendment before us, obviously His Majesty's Government, in framing the provisions of this Bill, had before them the consideration that any provisions contained in the Bill should draw together in closer co-operation the producing element that is concerned with the livestock industry, and I cannot think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has carefully reviewed the arrangements that can be brought into being under Part VI of the Bill dealing with service schemes. There is not really that degree of difference between the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, and the Government over this Amendment. The 546 purpose of this clause is first that it should be an enabling measure, and secondly, that any body of persons should be able to make proposals to the Commission. If those proposals are considered reasonable for testing out the experiment, then they can be referred, through the procedure of the Bill, to the Minister, and I see nothing in the Bill to prevent the intention of the noble Lord from being carried out.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI very deeply regret the answer of the noble Earl, and I am afraid there will be some people who will say that the Government—and I need scarcely say I do not include myself or the noble Earl—feel more concerned with getting their Bill through without amendment, or the alteration of a single comma or stop, than of doing something for the good of the industry. The noble Earl said that the Commission were unable to promote a scheme unless somebody produced it to them. I cannot find that in the Bill and I should be glad if he could indicate it in the measure, because it would appear to be quite clear from the clause that
the Commission may, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned, make and submit to the appropriate Ministera scheme. The only other answer which the noble Earl put forward was that it might be that they were not able to get any body of co-operative farmers to put forward a scheme. I say quite frankly that if it is quite impossible to put forward a scheme on co-operative lines I would rather not have the Bill at all, because at the present moment it is quite useless, and I have every intention of pressing my Amendment.
§ LORD HASTINGSI do think that the noble Earl should amplify his answer, because if it is strictly correct, as he no doubt believes, it is an answer to the Amendment, but if it is not strictly correct then it is no answer at all. Here are the words of the clause:
… the Commission may after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative or interests concerned, make and submit to the appropriate Minister such a slaughterhouse scheme.Then, if he will read on, subsection (2) says that "not more than three schemes shall be confirmed under this section," 547 which places a definite limitation upon the number of schemes which may be permitted and would make it more difficult for co-operative associations to obtain the ear of the Commission, if under the Bill they have the right. Then if he will turn to Clause 31, he will find that it says that whereas on the request of any body or bodies certain things may be done, those things do not include the promotion of a slaughter-house scheme. Therefore, it is not really a clause to which the noble Earl can refer for substantiation of his argument. I think he is bound to keep to Clause 23, and there are not to be found any of the things which my noble friend desires. I think he is bound not to give way unless a fuller and more convincing argument is forthcoming.
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEI was about to draw the attention of the noble Earl to the same point. What the noble Earl said to us, I think with all respect, was due to a misapprehension. He said that the Commission might act on the suggestion of co-operative bodies concerned. It is not made clear from the Bill as framed that that is permitted. Of course, if at a later stage of the Bill such words were definitely inserted, so that the clause would read, "the Commission may, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned, or on the suggestion of any agricultural cooperative society"—if the clause were so framed, and the noble Earl spoke as if it were so framed, then I for my part, though very reluctant to part with this Amendment, might wait until the Third Reading before coming to a definite decision. As things stand, and after the long crusade in this country in favour of co-operation amongst farmers, to get them a reasonable share of the profits of their products, I hope that unless the noble Earl is going to make some concession this Amendment will go to a Division, in the interests of a principle to which we have so long declared ourselves to adhere.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMPerhaps I might refer to the Bill in amplifying the reply previously given. I am informed that the words of Clause 23, subsection (1), mean that the Commission can only move if someone puts forward proposals for setting up a slaughter-house. The words are: 548
If, with respect to any arrangements made for the provision of a slaughter-house on any premises in Great Britain, or for the alteration of a slaughter-house provided on any such premises, the Commission are of opinion, having regard to the situation of the premises and to the manner in which it is proposed under the arrangements that the slaughter-house should be designed, equipped and managed,"—I am informed that those words do ensure that the Commission cannot make provision for a single slaughter-house scheme without somebody putting forward proposals.As noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion are aware, this question was debated at considerable length in another place, and I think my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture gave exactly the same answer as I have attempted to give this afternoon; and I would wish to assure noble Lords that it is not intended that either the Government or the Livestock Commission should institute new methods of slaughtering for any particular district, unless proposals are made to the Commission. I expect there are members of this House who have heard of certain localities where it is intended that such proposals shall be made, and it is for that reason that I repeat that I think there is no real variance between us. The principle which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, wished to see adopted is already embodied in the Bill, and if the Amendment were to be accepted it would place a restriction upon the provisions of the Bill. Our object is to make this Part of the Bill as wide as possible, and to make it an enabling measure—to enable any persons who have good prospects of making slaughtering conditions more up-to-date to apply to the Commission. So, if we once give details as to which types of persons are to be designated, then we may thereby exclude other persons.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI thank the noble Earl for his explanation, and I must confess that I do not think that any ordinary person, reading the first four lines of this clause, could ever have guessed that they had the meaning which he is assured that they do have. But I am not at all satisfied over this matter. It seems to me that if one of the three schemes is not to be on a co-operative basis—a basis which has been recommended, I believe, by every authoritative agricultural body in England—then this 549 clause is not worth having. The noble Earl says my Amendment is restrictive; I should personally like the whole three schemes to be on this basis. I am afraid I must press the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGIBefore the noble Lord goes to a Division, may I, while thanking the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Lord Bledisloe) for the tribute which earlier in the afternoon he paid to my Party for the interest it has shown in the co-operative principle in agriculture, offer my support to the Amendment? If the words of the noble Lord are inserted in the Bill it will have a stimulating effect on co-operative schemes,
§
LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
One of the said schemes shall provide that the person (not being a local authority or a joint board) carrying on the slaughter-house which by virtue of the scheme is to be deemed to be a central slaughter-house shall have power to purchase livestock for the purposes of the same being slaughtered at the central slaughter-house.
§ The noble Lord said: I do not know that I regard this Amendment as quite so important as the last one, but I think it is a desirable one. I have already pointed out that, as the Bill stands, the producer cannot get any advantage whatever from this clause; in fact it has not as yet been suggested by the noble Earl that he can. There is, as I understand it, no power at present in the Bill for
550§ and such co-operative schemes will be forthcoming for the consideration of the Commissioners, as laid down in the first six lines of this clause. That is a very strong argument for the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI can see nothing in the Bill to prevent all three of these schemes being on a co-operative basis, and to make one obligatory when perhaps a particular locality does not want it seems to me quite unnecessary.
§ On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 26.
549| CONTENTS. | ||
| Ancaster, E. | Annaly, L | Phillimore, L |
| Bathurst, E. | Biddulph, L. | St. Levan, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Carrington, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Lichfield, E. | Clinton, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Cranworth, L. [Teller.] | Snell, L. |
| Wicklow, E. | Hastings, L. [Teller.] | Strabolgi, L. |
| Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) | Strickland, L. | |
| Bledisloe, V. | O'Hagan, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Mar and Kellie, E | Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) |
| Minto, E. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] | |
| Halifax, V. (L. President.) | Munster, E. | Hutchison of Montrose, L. |
| Plymouth, E. | Mancroft, L. | |
| De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Radnor, E. | Ponsonby, L. (E Bessborough.) |
| Rayleigh, L. | ||
| Bertie of Thame, V. | Rennell, L. | |
| Dufferin and Ava, M. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. | |
| Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | ||
| Feversham, E. | Templemore, L. | |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Doverdale L. | Teynham, L. |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Elton, L. |
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ one of these slaughter-houses to buy. I think that is expressly excluded. The chief protagonists of this idea are really the Central Chamber of Agriculture, whose debate I read with great care, and their view was that a new market for meat of a desirable size might be opened up, more especially in certain parts of London, where at present the householder is forced by the fact that he has no choice in buying small meat, to buy foreign chilled meat, because there is no supply of British meat of the desired size. The object of this Amendment is that one of the three experimental slaughter-houses should have the power of purchasing direct from the farmer.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMIn the Bill, as drafted, the "person" carrying 551 on the central slaughter-house is neither authorised nor forbidden to purchase livestock, but it is clearly contemplated that he might be in a position to buy livestock. If the noble Lord would turn to Clause 24, paragraph (f) (i), he will see that. If the "person" were a public utility company that company would not require special authority in the Bill to enable it to buy livestock. If the "person" were a local authority these powers might not be possessed by the local authority in question, though, on the other hand, they might, under a Private Bill, possess such powers. Clause 26 is designed to supplement the powers of a local authority so far as may be necessary to enable them to provide and carry on a slaughter-house of the meat works type, but the trading powers which might be conferred by schemes on local authorities for this purpose are limited to the acquisition, preparation for sale, and disposal, by sale or otherwise, of such products of the slaughtering of livestock as are not butcher's meat. Therefore, the Bill does not confer on the local authority power to purchase livestock. It is not the intention, in providing facilities for these experiments, that fresh competition in the fat stock and meat trade should be introduced. The object is to ascertain whether a central slaughter-house run on meat works lines is the most economical and efficient means of tackling the general question of the slaughtering of livestock and the utilisation of the products of slaughtering to the best and fullest advantage. It is thought that the power to purchase livestock and to sell meat is not essential for this purpose, and therefore such power is not specifically conferred by the Bill. I hope I have now made it clear that this Bill does not specifically confer such power, but it may already exist.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI should like to ask the noble Earl, supposing the three schemes are in fact all conducted by municipal authorities having no power to buy, whether he can tell me what possible benefit the producer of livestock can derive under any of these three schemes.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe noble Lord has assumed that none of the municipal authorities provided with a specified area for a slaughter-house scheme would have any powers under a 552 Private Bill for the purchase of livestock. Taking that position, he then asks in what way would it benefit the producer. The whole intention of this experiment is to see whether, in practice, the recommendations of the De La Warr Report and of the Livestock Commission can, in fact, bring advantage; whether, by collective treatment of the offals and the byproducts, there can be benefit to the producer, to the consumer, and to the butcher. The noble Lord feels that in an instance of this kind any benefit which he admits might accrue might go solely to the butchers concerned, to what he termed the middlemen. As a farmer myself, I know that in the last few years the emphasis of profits has been laid upon the butcher rather than upon the producer, but I think a very substantial case can be made out that the producer will benefit under these central slaughter-house proposals. Under the provisions of Part IV he has, first, a better market in which to sell his stock, and he is not compelled by any provision of this Bill to sell to those butchers who are particularly dealing with the central slaughter-house. My view is that if this proposal is carried into effect, it does give an opportunity to provide the information whether or not it will increase the prosperity of the livestock industry, not only for the butcher but also for the producer.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI understand the noble Earl to say that unless a municipal authority has, under some Bill, the power to buy, there is no benefit to be gained other than will be gained by the municipality and the middleman. It therefore seems to me very remarkable that when I ask that in one of the three experimental services the producer should have the opportunity of getting some share of public money, and of the profit, from this experiment, it is refused. If His Majesty's Government could not accept the last Amendment, clearly they will not accept this one, and it would not be much use pressing it to a Division. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR, who had given notice that he would move to leave out Clause 23, said: I put down an Amendment at one point to leave out the whole of Part V, and for a short period, sufficiently long for it to get on one of the lists of Amendments, it escaped the eagle 553 eye of the Chairman of Committees. I have since conferred with him, and I understand I cannot move that Part V be left out of the Bi11 when we have concluded dealing with it. So I must try and do it by moving that each clause in turn be left out. My purpose in moving that Part V be left out of the Bill was really to reserve to myself the right to do so if my noble friend on the Government Bench did not give any satisfaction on any of the important Amendments I have down on the various clauses which comprise Part V. I therefore do not propose at this stage to move that these various clauses should be left out of the Bill. I shall wait and see what occurs to these various Amendments and possibly, if necessary, have something to say on Part V on the Report stage. If the noble Earl is accommodating with regard to my Amendments, there will be no need at any stage to try to move out that Part of the Bill which deals with the slaughter-house schemes, although I make an exception in the case of Clause 26. I shall move to leave that clause out in due course, but, if your Lordships will permit it, I will not move to leave out Clause 23 or any other clause except Clause 26.
§ Clause 23 agreed to.
§ Clause 24:
§ Matters for which provision may be made by slaughter-house schemes.
§
24.—(1) A slaughter-house scheme may make provision—
(d) requiring the person carrying on the central slaughter-house to pay, in such class of cases, and according to such principles, as may be determined by the scheme, compensation to any other person for any loss or damage which, by reason of the operation of the scheme, that other person may suffer in respect of his interest in any land used or appropriated for the carrying on of a slaughter-house, or in respect of his business as a slaughterer of livestock for food;
§ (f) directing—
- (i) that upon the slaughtering, at the central slaughter-house, of any livestock the property in which is not vested in the person carrying on the slaughterhouse, such of the products of the slaughtering (other than butcher's meat) as may be determined by or under the scheme shall be deemed to become the property of the said person; and
§ (k) for the reference to arbitration—
- (i) of any dispute on the question whether or not compensation is payable to any person under the scheme or on the question how much compensation is so payable,
- (ii) of any dispute on the question whether or not any sum is payable by any person by way of levy under the scheme, or on the question what sum is so payable, and
- (iii) of disputes as to any such other matters as may be specified in the scheme;
§ (l) determining what products are to be treated as butcher's meat for the purposes of the scheme.
§ Any provisions of a slaughter-house scheme may be made so as to apply in relation to a specified description of livestock only, and such a scheme may make different provision with respect to different descriptions of livestock.
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, after "slaughter-house," towards the end of paragraph (d) in subsection (1), to insert "or in respect of his interest in any land used or appropriated for the holding of markets in respect of livestock or in respect of his right to hold markets." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the one following, if your Lordships will permit me, can really be taken together. They deal with the question of what might be called indirect loss. Paragraph (d) requires a person carrying on a central slaughter-house to pay compensation to any person for loss or damage suffered by reason of the operation of the scheme in respect of land used or appropriated for the carrying on of the slaughter-house. The centralisation of a slaughter-house is going to alter the marketing arrangements. It is more than likely that the ordinary individual, instead of sending his beasts, if necessary, to the local market, will send them either direct to the slaughter-house concerned, or, if that is not possible, to the market which takes place in the centre where the slaughterhouse is, and very likely there will be a lot of direct loss caused to those whose business has been in the past to sell livestock for the farmers.
§ It is, of course, strictly speaking, an indirect loss, but it will be a direct result of any slaughter-house scheme, and I think it does deserve a certain amount of consideration. I know that there is the argument that it will open the door to all kinds of claims for indirect losses by shopkeepers, hotel keepers, and the like, who 555 may lose some of their trade through the alteration in the market organisation. In this particular case, however, I think you can hardly call it an indirect loss, because these men are directly concerned in the business of selling the stock, and they might quite easily—I do not say that they will—lose their livelihood and a great deal of their trade owing to the operation of the scheme. I therefore beg to move that these words be inserted.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 38, after ("slaughter-house") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has moved this Amendment because, as I understand from him, of apprehension on the part of auctioneers and market owners that a central slaughter-house scheme might affect local livestock markets first of all by concentrating supplies at a central slaughter-house, thereby tending to bring about redundancy or loss of trade in certain markets; and, secondly, by stimulating dead weight certification for subsidy. The experiments that are proposed in Part V are, of course, nothing new. Local authorities have had for some forty years a general power to erect slaughter-houses, and some authorities have secured powers under private legislation to close down private slaughter-houses where a public slaughter-house has been provided. Local authorities in Sheffield, for instance, have provided a central slaughter-house and have closed down the private slaughterhouses. The private slaughter-houses have been compensated where a claim to compensation could be justified. That has been the procedure, and it is nothing new, but there has never been, as far as I am aware, any question of compensating such indirect interests as market owners or auctioneers. It would, I think, be introducing a new principle if it were accepted that the authority putting up a central slaughter-house was required to compensate those interests for possible damage, and it would be very difficult to estimate the degree of damage that had accrued and, also, the assessment would be extremely difficult.
I believe that no great evidence has been put forward to induce the Government to assume that, because a central slaughter-house is set up in some area, it would have an adverse effect on the 556 local markets and cause their closure. It is just one of those theoretical points that the slaughter-house proposals are designed to test. If it should prove true that considerable harm is done to market owners and auctioneers in the area covered by the slaughter-house scheme, then obviously it will be necessary to review the proposals laid down in Part V of this Bill. If, on the other hand, there is no increased hardship beyond that which has existed during the course of the last forty years under the Private Bills that certain local authorities have enjoyed, then there is no sufficient justification for adopting a new principle in this Bill contrary to the practice that has hitherto prevailed. I hope I have made it clear that such a course would be to create a precedent. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will be inclined to accept the same procedure in this Bill as has been common in the past.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI understood the noble Earl, Lord Fever-sham, to say that if it is discovered losses occur the matter will be reviewed. Does he mean by that that legislation will be introduced which will also be retrospective?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMNo, what I meant is that the whole of Part V is an experiment, and will have to come under the review of Parliament in the future, and future policy will be based upon the results of the experiments in the three centres.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEDoes that mean that compensation will be paid for future causes of loss?
THE EARL OF RADNORAs I indicated, I appreciate the difficulties involved by this Amendment, but it does seem to me, in view of what the noble Earl has said, that he thinks there possibly may be cases of loss—we cannot tell—because of this experiment. In that case, I would point that you have in the clause, in paragraph (k), the question of arbitration dealt with, and surely, if you put this in at this stage and if the scheme has also in it that reference to arbitration of any dispute on the question of assessment, the matter would then be perfectly easily and fairly thrashed out. If there was no case no compensation would be 557 paid, and if there was a case for compensation then compensation would be paid. It seems to me that it is not right to say to these people: "Oh yes, we think there may be real hardship and there may be loss occasionally, but we are not going to make any provision for compensation for the loss so occasioned." I do not know whether the noble Earl has considered the matter in the light of the fact that you can have an arbitration court which would prevent compensation being paid if there was no compensation payable.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), paragraph (f) (i), after "meat," to add "and hides, skins and pelts." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which with two other Amendments—page 24, line 26, page 25, line 23—are consequential on the Amendment that I have put down to Clause 56 at page 46, line 26. If your Lordships will permit me I should like to deal with all four together. It will save time. The underlying idea of the Amendments is that in the Bill as drafted at present it is left to the scheme to decide what products are to be treated as butcher's meat. It is left to the scheme to decide what the slaughter-house keeper is to keep out of the beast he slaughters and the butcher will have no say as to what he gets back. That applies not only to the edible parts of the beast but also to such things as hides and skins. There would be little or no incentive to the purchaser to take care that he purchased a beast which had a good hide. We do not know on what lines hides will be paid for, but I rather gather by implication that it will be on the basis of a fixed price per beast. So far as butcher's meat is concerned we do not know what offals are to be kept and what are to be sent back to the butcher.
§ I indicated in the Second Reading debate that from the butcher's point of view and also from the point of view of the livestock producer it is highly desirable that the butcher should get back all the edible offals at the very earliest opportunity, and I quoted figures then as to the difference in price between imported and home-killed offals. I told your Lordships that the reason for that difference was that the imported offals, having 558 been killed and carried some distance, had suffered in bloom and consequently were not so acceptable to the purchaser. I have here a list which I need not go through in detail, but I may say that sheeps' kidneys, when home killed, are worth more than double the imported variety, that in case if calves' sweetbreads the price is more than double, and that calves' livers when home killed, are three times as valuable as when imported. If those parts of the beasts are kept in central slaughter-houses for any length of time and put in the chilled room they will lose their bloom and therefore their price. The beast from which they come will be of less value to the butcher and he will be able to afford to pay less money to the farmer for that beast. The price of these offals will come down to the level of the imported offals.
§
May I reinforce my argument by quoting what the Minister himself said on this point? He said definitely that a person carrying on a central slaughterhouse would not be entitled to retain any of the products of the slaughtering other than those described as the unidentifiable offals such as blood, horns and hooves, occasional fat scraps, glands and offals of condemned meat. That is the wording I have used in the Amendment I have put down to Clause 56. It makes it perfectly clear what is butcher's meat instead of leaving it to the scheme to decide what should or should not be butcher's meat. I quite realise that those bodies which carry on slaughter-house schemes are entitled to trade in all those various by-products of the beast, but I think that the butcher is entitled not only to the benefit of his own skill in purchasing an animal with a good hide but is also entitled to the benefit of his skill in selling the freshest offals he can get. I think it is clear that it is the intention in these slaughter-house schemes that there should be places for central slaughtering, and here again I would quote the words of the Minister of Agriculture. He said:
The purpose is to set up an organisation which can supply a service to the meat trade.
If that is what is really intended and if the noble Earl can accept this Amendment or something of this nature which would make it clear in the Bill that that is the intention, then I think these slaughter-houses will perform a service
559
to the butchering industry and yet not compete in any way.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 6, after ("meat") add ("and hides, skins and pelts").—(The Earl of Radnor).
TOE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe intention of this Amendment is to prevent undue interference with the hide and skin trade. I should like to assure the noble Earl that in practice it is not contemplated that it will be found necessary to carry the processing of hides and skins beyond the point to which they are at present processed in the public abattoirs. I believe that the extent of the present processing is cooling, cleansing and salting. It seems desirable that these processes, and flaying, should be carried on in accordance with the most efficient and economical technique that can be provided. Whatever the activities are in the processing of these by-products they will have to be indicated in some detail in the arrangements which are to be submitted to the Livestock Commission under Clause 23, and all "interests concerned," which obviously means those interests that are directly occupied in processing byproducts, will examine a scheme after the Commission announce their intention of submitting it to the Minister. The procedure set out in the Fifth Schedule of the Bill affords ample opportunity for objections to be made and considered by the Minister before he decides to confirm the scheme. The main byproducts which will be concerned are, I suppose, fat, blood and casings, which depend upon immediate and expert treatment for the production of standard qualities and the realisation of optimum values. Under the present system it is economically impossible to utilise fully many of these by-products.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has referred to a list that was given by my right honourable friend in the Committee stage in another place. That list, however, was only meant to act as an illustration, and it is impossible to draw up a comprehensive list of the particular byproducts to which the noble Earl has referred, owing to the great variety of differentiation which exists from district to district. The noble Earl will know that what is considered butcher's meat in one part of the country is not necessarily 560 so considered in another part. That is why it was felt to be more satisfactory that the list of what the noble Earl has termed "unidentifiable offals" should be included in the individual scheme according to the needs of that scheme and not made part of a statutory measure: because it is not possible to include every type of offal that would be considered as such in all parts of the country. With the object, therefore, of meeting the requirements of each district, it is suggested that all those by-products which are not named as butcher's meat should be carefully discussed and analysed through the procedure laid down in Part V, and that every body of persons affected in a given district should, as in other instances, have ample opportunity of stating their case for certain of these by-products either to be included or excluded, first before the Commission and then under the procedure of the Fifth Schedule before the Minister. There is then the usual procedure of public inquiry if objections are still outstanding. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be satisfied that the point will be covered in the individual scheme although it is difficult to cover by Statute.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI do not see much difficulty in having a definition in this Bill of what is to be butcher's meat and what is to be offals. Notwithstanding any local custom, the definition would prevail all over the country.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI should like to point out to the noble Viscount that that would not be in the interests of the meat trade itself.
THE EARL OF RADNORI appreciate the noble Earl's arguments, although I do not quite understand why it would not be in the interests of the country to get the thing more or less regularised, especially as the slaughter-house provisions are intended, if successful, to form the basis of similar slaughter-house schemes all over the country. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, although it may be difficult to do it in the way that I suggest here—that is, by saying that the butcher is to get back everything except these few named offals—there is any possibility, if the Committee agreed, of inserting at a later stage an Amendment which would give the butcher quite definitely the option of saying whether he 561 will or will not keep a certain list of the offals. I want to make quite certain that there shall be in the Bill some kind of definition of what the butcher is entitled to get back from the beast which he sends to the central slaughter-house, and that the list shall not be left to be put in the scheme itself.
The noble Earl has detailed the procedure through which a scheme will have to go, which includes a public inquiry and so on. But, after all, a very large number of people will be actively interested in a slaughter-house scheme, and the butchers will only be one small section at a public inquiry. I do not know who would be in charge of such a public inquiry; would it be an inspector from the Ministry of Agriculture, or possibly even from the Ministry of Health, or some one of that sort? That man must take the weight of evidence, and if the bulk of evidence is in favour of the scheme, the butcher is left out in the cold. This is often not a very satisfactory method of getting objections put right. Would the noble Earl consider, by any different kind of Amendment, doing what I suggest—namely, providing that the Bill shall contain somewhere a list of those parts of the beast which the butcher is entitled to have back if he wishes?
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThe noble Earl says that it is not in the interests of the meat trade to have a definition. I have had an opportunity of consulting with those who advise them, and I am informed that it is in the interests of the trade, because they want their hides and offals.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL(EARL DE LA WARR)I hesitate to add anything to what my noble friend has already said, because he has put the case so very clearly. The only point I would venture to make is that this is a perfectly simple issue: how far this Bill is to be an enabling Bill, making it possible for us to get schemes that will be worked out according to the needs of the districts for which they are designed, and how far we are going to try to lay down the details of those schemes in the Bill itself. That is the only point at issue. Those of us who have dealt with the meat trade at all know that its every district the definition of offals varies. The conditions of dealing with these particular offals, the hides and skins, vary very much. If a 562 slaughter-house were set up in a particular town or area there might well be, within a very short distance, full provision for dealing with hides and skins, or a new slaughter-house might be set up in an area where there was no such provision. The noble Earl who moved this Amendment admitted that one of the most important things in dealing with these offals, including hides and skins, is that they should be dealt with in a fresh condition. It is a question of the facilities of the particular areas concerned. Therefore I suggest to noble Lords that it is very important to leave this matter open to be dealt with in the scheme itself, and if I might I would remind the noble Earl of the point Lord Feversham has already made, that the whole scheme would have to be considered in every detail, with full opportunity for every interest concerned to make its representations and its appeals.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (k). The noble Earl said: During the passage of the Bill in another place Clause 24 was amended to provide for compensation for closed slaughter-houses to be paid direct by the central slaughter-house authority, and for the liability to contribute to the Commission's expenses to be limited to the central slaughter-house authority only. It is considered that sub-paragraph (iii) is sufficient to include the now very limited matter of sub-paragraph (ii). I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 20, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("and") in line 23.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (l), to insert:
Every slaughter-house scheme made under this Part of this Act which enables a local authority or joint Board to provide and carry on such a slaughter-house as is deemed by virtue of the scheme to be the central slaughter-house for the purpose of the scheme shall provide that any excess of revenue over expenditure in respect of any year derived from the carrying on of the central slaughterhouse shall be applied to the reduction of the charges which may be made in the next succeeding year in respect of services performed and the use of facilities provided at or in connection with the central slaughter-house.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really all of a piece with certain Amendments which have gone before, and it is 563 designed in the hope that we may perhaps, at long last, get a little something for the producers out of this Part of the Bill. The Government have succeeded so far in keeping the producer firmly in his place, and the municipalities, so far as this Part of the Bill is concerned, are going to have it all their own way. As we must suppose that all these three schemes will be promoted by rich municipalities—that I regard as quite inevitable now—I think it is extremely desirable in the producers' interest that such profits as may attach to these schemes shall not be devoted exclusively to the relief of the rates of these municipalities, because obviously a municipality is not going to enter into a slaughter-house scheme merely from motives of philanthropy, but rather in the not uncertain hope of their bringing in money to assist the rates of the municipality. If that is the frame of mind in which a municipality enters the scheme it is clear that producers and the dealers for whom the slaughter-house acts as agent are not going to get as much out of it as it is reasonable they should. It has to be borne in mind that these slaughterhouses are to be State aided. Grants will be available and money will be advanced free of interest. The farming interest concerned ought to be given an opportunity of participating in these benefits, and be permitted to get the fullest value for the beasts to be slaughtered.
§ Some of my remarks may be said to be bitter, but I do not think they are unjustified. We have got to Clause 24 of the Bill, but the representations made on behalf of the agricultural interest per se have met with no consideration whatever. Throughout, every kind of fortification has been set up to enable the local authorities to maintain their position of priority under the Bill, and this Amendment is designed to defeat that priority in one particular direction. I make no secret of that whatever, and if, as the Government have averred, this is a Bill for advancing the agricultural interest, I trust they will permit this Amendment to find its way into the Bill.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 27, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ LORD CRANWORTHI would just like to support my noble friend in this 564 Amendment. What I feel about this is that I sincerely hope that no municipality whatever will run these three schemes. I venture to suggest that, prior to the introduction of this Bill and its coming to this House, there was never any idea of these slaughter-house schemes being run by local authorities. It is something quite new to the Bill, and I venture to think you would never have had the support which in past years has been given to this proposal, had it ever been suggested that it was the public authorities, the municipalities, which were going to run them, presumably at a profit for the relief of the rates. Quite frankly, I dislike municipal trading, but that it should be utilised to take State money, ostensibly given to and the agricultural interest, is quite monstrous, and I beg to support my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMIt is a matter of regret that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, feels for some reason that I cannot myself account for that the Government are directly opposed to the interests of producers. I contest that. The noble Lord said that he regarded it as quite inevitable that the schemes for central slaughter-houses will be promoted by rich municipalities. There is nothing in the Bill which supports that statement. Your Lordships will all agree that it is essentially a matter for the Commission to consider, having regard to each particular case, the expenses and the financial arrangements dealing with any central slaughter-house. I suggest to the noble Lord that his Amendment will introduce a certain rigidity into the financial arrangements which I think might easily give rise to considerable difficulty. I cannot see any definition of expenditure in the noble Lord's Amendment, which might prevent the central slaughter-house authority from obtaining any return upon capital invested, or even from paying interest on any loan received from the Exchequer. It might prevent expenditure on very desirable improvements in the facilities provided. I believe that a restriction of this kind, no matter who the body of persons are who put forward the slaughter-house scheme proposals, would deter a number of applicants from putting forward such proposals. In fact, it would tend to reduce the field of selection, and I believe that we are agreed that the field of selection should be as open as possible.
565 The manner in which the slaughterhouse is proposed to be managed is a matter which the Commission are required to consider before submitting a scheme, and the proposed financial arrangements will clearly be critically examined at that stage. If the slaughterhouse is to attract supplies it will clearly be in the interests of the scheme that the charges should be fixed as low as possible. The services provided by the central slaughter-house authorities need to be made as attractive as possible in order to attract butchers to deal with them. We proceed on the basis that the persons serving on the Livestock Commission will be reasonable people, and I hope the noble Lord will rely upon the reasonableness of the Commissioners to see that excessive profits are not made, which would in itself be instrumental in destroying the potential value of the scheme.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDI think it might be an advantage if we had an assurance from the noble Earl that the Government do not look with favour upon the idea of any profits made out of a municipally run slaughter-house being applied to the reduction of rates. I have no doubt that Lord Hastings is as anxious as the Government that nothing should be done to prevent improvements being made, or to prevent interest being paid upon a loan.
§ LORD HASTINGSThe noble Earl has said what I was just about to say. May I add that our purpose is to secure if possible that these slaughter-house schemes shall not be run for the benefit of municipal ratepayers? That is our whole purpose. But there was one matter which the noble Earl mentioned about which I really must ask him to think again. He said that the conditions of the slaughterhouses should be made as attractive as possible, otherwise they would not get the trade to carry on successfully. But he surely has forgotten that they will be used compulsorily. It is quite true that a person who buys cattle may go to the expense of sending it half way across England to slaughter it somewhere else, but he will not be able to have it slaughtered in his own area except in the approved slaughter-house. Therefore I do not think the noble Earl's answer in that respect was at all convincing. In regard to this Amendment, I admit the noble Earl's point is a very strong one. 566 One does not want to put anything in the Bill which would impose restrictions which later on would be found to be foolish, but if we could have something in the Bill to make it sure that these slaughterhouses would not be conducted for the benefit of ratepayers, then we should be perfectly satisfied I am quite content to withdraw the Amendment, particularly if the noble Earl could give us some undertaking that an Amendment introduced at a later stage to ensure the purpose we have in view will be acceptable.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think that noble Lords recognise that the actual case put by my noble friend Lord Feversham is really unanswerable. At the same time, I am sure the Government will admit that there is a point here as to whether local authorities should be allowed to make profits out of the farmers. The Government cannot issue instructions of that character to the local authorities, but I see no reason at all why we should not consider at the very least some instruction to the Livestock Commission with regard to the operation of Clause 24 (1) (e), where it is laid down that they can make provision "for fixing or limiting the charges which may be made in respect of services performed." We might well consider the issuing of some instruction that when a scheme makes provision for fixing on limiting those; charges it should take into account the fact that it was not desirable that profits should be made. I only mention that as a point we will consider, without in arty way committing my noble friend.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 24, as amended agreed to.
§ Clause 25 agreed to.
§ Clause 26:
§ Power of local authorities to provide and carry on slaughter-houses.
§ 26.—(1) A slaughter-house scheme may enable any local authority specified in the scheme (if and so far as that local authority is not enabled by virtue of any Act other than this Act so to do)—
- (a) to provide and carry on (whether within or outside the area of the authority) such a slaughter-house as is to be deemed by virtue of the scheme to be the central slaughter-house for the purposes of the scheme, and for that purpose to acquire by agreement any interest in land and to borrow money;
- (b) to acquire such products of the slaughtering of livestock at that slaughterhouse (other than butcher's meat) as may be determined by or under the scheme; and
- (c) so far as spay be permitted by the scheme, to prepare for sale, and to sell or otherwise dispose of, any products acquired by the authority by virtue of the scheme.
§ (2) Sections six to ten of the Public Health Act, 1936, (which provide for the constitution of joint hoards) shall apply in relation to the purposes of a slaughter-house scheme as they apply in relation to the purposes of that Act, and the said sections, in their application in relation to the purposes of such a scheme,—
- (a) shall extend to the administrative county of London, and
- (b) shall have effect as if references in those sections to local authorities and their districts included references to sanitary authorities for the purposes of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and their districts.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 19, after ("any") insert ("land or").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 23, leave out ("or").(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
Provided that no order or scheme shall permit any process or manufacture being applied thereunder to any product of the slaughtering of livestock except to the extent of preparing the product in a suitable form for delivery to a factory whose business it is to manufacture from such product in its original form.
§ The noble Viscount said: Under this Bill local authorities are to be among those who are to be allowed to provide and carry on these central experimental slaughter-houses, and they are to have an absolute monopoly in the chosen area. After slaughtering the animals brought to them these central abattoirs can obtain the hides, hooves, horns and unidentifiable offals and blood, and there is nothing to prevent them from proceeding to manufacture out of the surplus parts such articles as tanned leather, glue, gelatine, fertilisers, soaps and tallow and many other things in competition with old established businesses which are quite prepared to continue with their business. The competition will be unfair because it will be subsidised. The real object of the Amendment is to make it clear that no 568 excessive expansion of municipal trading in connection with these slaughter-houses shall be carried out. A similar Amendment was moved in another place, and the Minister then said that no local authorities would be able to go in for such activities without someone having the right to object when a scheme was brought forward. Is it right that an important matter of principle of this kind should, as the Minister suggested, be left to local opposition and local criticism? Why should the people who object be put to the expense of objecting? I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 28, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMIt is not the intention that local authorities should be empowered to engage in extensive manufacturing operations in connection with any slaughtering activities that they may undertake. The words "prepare for sale" have been very carefully chosen with that consideration in mind. The difficulty is to know where to draw the line in the case of each product, bearing in mind that new methods of preliminary preparation must not be excluded and, again, if such matters could be decided in advance, to know how to define the limits in general terms. It is not unusual to find in existing public abattoirs provision within the abattoir premises for the handling and treatment of by-products. Some measure of processing of by-products is of the very essence of the slaughtering experiments proposed. Their nature will vary with local conditions, with the seasons, and with the state of the markets for such products. But it is essential to bear in mind in connection with the proposed scope of the activities of the central experimental slaughter-house, whether conducted by a local authority or not, that these activities will have to be indicated in some detail in the "arrangements" which are submitted to the Livestock Commission under Clause 23. The question whether these proposed "arrangements" are open to objection will, as the noble Lord truly said, be closely examined by all interests concerned. It would be undesirable to insert a form of words in the Bill which would prejudice the full consideration, on their merits, of any proposals that may be put forward.
569 As I endeavoured to point out on a previous Amendment, the Bill does not confer upon anybody any power to trade in meat. The aim of the Bill is to ensure the most skilful handling and such treatment as is necessary to make meat available to the consumer in the best possible condition, and it is not thought necessary for this purpose for the butcher to part with the ownership of the dressed carcase. As regards by-products, however, it is economically impossible, under the present system of slaughtering, to utilise to the full many by-products of slaughtering which depend on immediate and expert treatment for the realisation of their full values. The meat works abattoir aims at securing the utmost value for even the smallest by-product, and to do so it will be necessary to assume possession and ownership of certain of these by-products. The nature of these by-products will depend on regional, seasonal and price variations and that, as my noble friend will agree, is a matter which defies predetermination. The Bill accordingly provides for the determination of this in individual schemes.
As my right honourable friend said during the debate on the Report stage in another place:
The schemes will have to detail with sufficient precision what processing is to be carried out, so that any objection which is made in any locality will be heard and will receive careful attention.In framing each scheme the question will, therefore, have to be settled as to what products of slaughtering are to be treated in bulk at the central slaughter-house and disposed of by the management and what products are to be, with or without treatment, made available for individual butchers. There is no intention to compete with skilled manufacturers utilising as their raw materials the products of slaughtering, but rather that certain preliminary processes should be capable of being undertaken at the spot where they can most conveniently be performed—at the central slaughter-house—and to obtain thereby returns which would materially enhance the value of these products.
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEI do so entirely agree with what has fallen from the noble Earl that I feel bound to say so to your Lordships. Conversant as I am with the operation of these large-scale slaughter-houses, freezing factories, and so on in many parts of the world, I 570 am perfectly certain that it is in the interests alike of the producer and the consumer that there should be as little transference from premises to premises and as little handling as possible on the part of different interests if the process is to be carried out efficiently and if due reward is going to pass to the owner of the livestock. It may be that an inequity is contemplated in the case of certain middlemen vested interests on the establishment of these slaughter-houses. If so, let proper compensation be paid. But if we are going to carry out this work efficiently in this country, as it is being carried out in other parts of the world, with a reduction as far as possible of overhead costs in the processing and conversion of livestock and its offals, I am perfectly certain that this is a grand opportunity which we ought to grasp to deal with these products as far as possible in one premises, under one roof, and so reduce the overhead costs of conversion to the utmost possible extent.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy noble friend Lord Feversham has said there is no intention to manufacture, but surely, unless something is put into the Bill, manufacture may take place? In the meantime, I should like to withdraw my Amendment and consider in detail what he has said.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out Clause 26. The noble Earl said: Clause 26 starts off by saying:
A slaughter-house scheme may enable any local authority specified in the scheme (if and so far as that local authority is not enabled by virtue of any Act other than this Act so to do)…
to carry on a slaughter-house and similar things. That is a provision which affects, I think, a very wide principle. We have already in this country a very comprehensive system whereby local authorities can extend their activities by Private Acts of Parliament, a system that seems to me to work quite admirably. It enables all those who have any objection to the activities of such local authorities the fullest opportunity to put their points of view forward and have them considered in detail by both Houses of Parliament.
§
I would say that in another place the Minister, in the Committee stage, said:
If a body which comes forward with a proposal for a slaughter-house already
571
possesses the power to trade under the Common Law there is nothing in this Bill as it stands at present which takes away that power.
That is true, but it does not affect those local authorities which already have the power to trade in this way. He went on:
If, on the other hand, it is not a body which possesses that power there is nothing in the Bill which confers the power upon it.
Of course it does quite definitely confer on local authorities which have not got the power now the power to run slaughter-houses, and it is to my mind an extension of municipal trading without the necessity of coming to Parliament. That is most undesirable, not so much from the point of view of this Bill but as a precedent for any other form of municipal activity that may be put forward. It is on those grounds, and because I personally object very strongly to extensions of municipal trading, that I move that this clause be deleted.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 26.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDThe noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in few and cogent words, has pointed out clearly to your Lordships what I hope the majority of your Lordships will regard as absolutely accurate, that is that the proposals in this clause go a long way towards short-circuiting the authority of Parliament. We are still, thank heaven, a country governed by Parliament, and I submit that it is highly undesirable, especially at the present day, that anything should be done which would weaken the authority of Parliament by enabling any form of legislation to be carried into effect without consultation with both Houses. There is, as has been already pointed out, a perfectly good procedure whereby any municipality wishing to acquire such powers can do so if and when Parliament thinks fit. I submit also that no case is made out in the Bill why this well-established procedure has become obsolete or needs improvement. There is another ethical aspect which was touched on only very slightly by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and that is the question of the undesirability of the extension of municipal trading in any form. I hope and believe that the majority of your Lordships agree with me in considering that municipalities 572 should not go beyond those essential services which cannot well be carried on by private enterprise. I do not imagine that there are very many of your Lordships, save possibly the one representative of the Opposition who has gallantly and silently retained his position on the Opposition Bench—
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDI missed the noble Lord's still small voice, but there are very few members of your Lordships' House, at least on this side, who would agree that there is going to be any advantage to the country as a whole or to agricultural interests in particular if municipalities are allowed to buy land and set up slaughter-houses, and apparently butchers' shops and perhaps cats' meat barrows or anything they like to do, without having first come to Parliament, given good reasons and obtained the authority of both Houses for so doing. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to drop this clause, and if they do not do so that then your Lordships will by a majority insist on their doing so.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe noble Earl who moved this Amendment and the noble Earl who has last spoken pointed out that under the Public Health Act of 1875 a local authority is empowered to provide a slaughter-house, and the object of subsection (i) of Clause 26 is to remove any doubt, in the case of a local authority specified in the slaughterhouse scheme, as to the sufficiency of those powers for the purpose of providing and maintaining a slaughter-house of the type contemplated in a slaughter-house scheme. Subsection (2) applies the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, which relates to the constitution of joint boards by provincial authorities, and extends them to the Administrative County of London. As far as I have understood from the noble Earl the Amendment is to prevent local authorities from undertaking the provision of factory abattoirs.
THE EARL OF RADNORMay I interrupt the noble Earl? That is not the intention of the Amendment. The intention of the Amendment is that if they desire to undertake these duties they 573 should have to comply with the ordinary provisions of the law of the country as it is to-day, and obtain a Private Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThat is a very large and expensive undertaking, and in the case of a local authority concerned with the provision in any given area of an experimental slaughter-house, it surely is proper that such provision should be included in this Bill which is the only Bill providing for such experiments. I gather that the Amendment in practice would have a limited effect, since the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1936 already empower provincial sanitary authorities to establish slaughter-houses and to constitute joint boards. The Amendment does conflict with the policy of His Majesty's Government as outlined in the provisions of this Part of the Bill, which is to make it possible for any local authority in Great Britain or for private interests to undertake, either jointly or severally, a central slaughter-house scheme. Again I would point out that the Bill is an enabling measure which empowers any authority to take advantage, if it so desires of the provisions in Clause 26. The noble Earl is suggesting that an additional restriction should be placed upon municipal trading. It is felt by His Majesty's Government that it is impossible to obtain satisfactory information from these experiments unless those wishing to participate have the widest field, and it is for that purpose that this provision has been inserted in the Bill.
§ LORD HASTINGSIn arguing against Clause 26, my noble friend omitted to say that, whereas municipalities which now have power to establish slaughter-houses have had to go to the immense expense of promoting Private Bills, it will be hard that other municipalities should be able to compete with them and not only be excused that expense but also receive public money. I hope the noble Earl will bear that in mind.
THE EARL OF RADNORThe noble Earl in his concluding remarks said that this would be placing restrictions on municipal trading. I do not know if I am interpreting that aright, but it seems as if the spokesman of the Government is in favour of municipal trading, which in my view is not the function at any rate of the present Government.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMMay I be allowed to interrupt in order to make plain what I intended to say? I was not empowered to express the opinion of the Government whether there is to be an increase or decrease of municipal trading; but for the purpose of this Bill we feel that it is necessary to empower local authorities, if they wish to take advantage of one or more of the three experiments, to do so under these provisions of the Bill. Again may I emphasise that these provisions are really of an experimental character and that the number of experiments is limited to three over the whole of Great Britain? There would be greater significance, I think, in arguments put forward by noble Lords if this were a permanent comprehensive measure for the establishment of central slaughter-houses. But these three schemes are experimental, and in order that the experiment should provide the fullest information it is thought that both municipal and private enterprise should have equal opportunity of participating.
THE EARL OF RADNORThe purpose is not to put restrictions on municipal trading but to ensure that the law regarding municipalities or public bodies should remain as it is and not be altered by this Bill. It does not prevent a public body from taking advantage of these slaughter-house schemes. I know the noble Earl argues that this is only an experiment affecting three schemes, but if they are successful they will be the model for an extension. If they are not to be the model for an extension, what on earth is the use of having them in the Bill at all? My noble friend has said that Private Bills cost money. It is infernally expensive for ratepayers when they have a municipality running something which is going to cost a lot of money. It is through Private Bill legislation that ratepayers have a chance to see that their interests are properly looked after. If they are not to proceed by private legislation, and there is nothing to prevent a municipality from taking advantage of this Bill if they have not powers already, the only safeguard is a procedure in another place which can only, I believe, be brought in after eleven o'clock at night or something of that kind. I might also point out—I should have said this before—that Clause 26 (1) (a)provides that a municipality 575 can do this either within or outside its own area. That, I think, makes it essential that a municipality should have to go through Private Bill legislation so that any objections can be thrashed out before Parliament. I cannot accept the explanation of the noble Earl and I feel that I must go to a Division.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI really think there is a good deal of misapprehension about this. Noble Lords have spoken as if the Government were seeking to establish some new principle. The fact is that something like 90 per cent. of the home-killed meat in Scotland is killed in municipal abattoirs and that in England a very large percentage, although not so large, of meat is killed in municipal abattoirs. Therefore we are suggesting no change. The noble Lord asked why local authorities should not, as in the past, have to promote Private Bills. That is tantamount to saying to local authorities, when we are asking them to help us in carrying out this experiment, that they must undertake, first of all, a large expenditure on Private Bill legislation before they can come into the scheme. The noble Lord says that what we are doing is to suggest to local authorities that they need not ask for the approval of Parliament. But this is a Bill giving the approval of Parliament to a maximum of three schemes. There was another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, which I also think was based on a misapprehension. He asked why new local authorities' should be given an advantage in competing against existing local authorities which have municipal abattoirs. Does he really suggest that the City of London, which has a municipal abattoir, is competing against the City of Manchester? Both of them are performing certain services for their local consumers. The suggestion that one is competing against the other is a complete misapprehension.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, asked what advantage is the. agriculturist going to get out of this. At the present moment, of the meat consumed in this country approximately 50 per cent. is home killed and 50 per cent. foreign, whereas the proportions in London are about 75 per cent. foreign compared with 25 per cent. home killed. Having looked into the matter I am quite prepared to contend 576 that one of the main reasons for that is the way in which London meat is being dealt with at present. If we can establish more efficient slaughtering and handling of meat we might do a great deal to help the home producer by increasing the ease with which home-killed meat could be bought. Therefore I suggest that this Amendment is not likely to help the Bill, and I ask the noble Lords not to press it.
§ LORD CRANWORTHThe noble Earl who has just spoken made rather a remarkable statement. He said that the local authorities had been asked to help the Government with schemes for these slaughter-houses. Before that, however, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said, in answer to an Amendment of mine, that the Commission, and over them the Government, could not move unless someone had suggested a scheme to them. This seems a very contradictory statement.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe noble Lord is completely misrepresenting me. What I meant to say, and I think it was quite clear, is that this Bill is a direct invitation from Parliament to bodies, local authorities among others, to submit schemes.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEIf these schemes are successful, they will naturally be incorporated in a General Bill to make several central abattoirs, and the result will be that municipal authorities will not have to come to Parliament for powers.
THE EARL OF RADNORThe noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that he thought that noble Lords who had spoken in favour of the Amendment were under a misapprehension. He himself is under a misapprehension, certainly so far as my views are concerned. I do not care two-pence in this connection about the Livestock Bill, livestock or slaughter-houses. The thing that is worrying me is the principle involved: that we are through this Part of the Bill creating a precedent for short-circuiting the ordinary process of municipal legislation, a precedent which might easily be followed in other Bills and would be very dangerous. As a matter of fact, as far as this clause of the Bill is concerned, the noble Earl himself provided the answer. He said that a large proportion of the slaughter-houses in this country were already municipal slaughter-houses.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIn Scotland.
THE EARL OF RADNORHe said 90 per cent. in Scotland and quite a large percentage in England. Surely, if he only wants three experimental slaughter-houses he can find them among those local authorities who already have the powers, and need not incorporate in the Bill this extremely objectionable principle.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI hesitate to continue this debate, but again the noble Lord is suggesting something quite wrong: that it: is a new idea that local legislation which has given specific powers to local authorities in Private Bills over a certain length of time should at some time or another, when it has become
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
§ Clause 31:
§ Service schemes.
§ 31.—(1) On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons engaged in one or more of the following activities, that is to say, the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock and the preparation for sale, and the marketing, treatment and use, of products of the slaughtering of livestock, the Commission, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and any other bodies appealing to the Commission to represent the interests of the said class or classes of persons, may make and submit to the appropriate Minister a scheme under this part of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to as
578§ firmly established, be embodied in general legislation. That is not a new principle at all. His Majesty's Government, however, are not asking your Lordships to go as far as that. All they ask you to do is to extend that principle to three possible local authorities which shall carry out certain schemes on lines laid down in this Bill by Parliament.
§ On Question, Whether the clause proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 11.
577| CONTENTS. | ||
| Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Minto, E. | Hampton, L. |
| Munster, E. | Jessel, L. | |
| Halifax V. (L. President.) | Onslow, E. | Luke, L. |
| Plymouth, E. | Mancroft, L. | |
| De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Wicklow, E. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Bledisloe, V. | Rennell, L. | |
| Aberdeen and Temair, M. | Goschen, V. | Saltoun, L. |
| Dufferin and Ava, M. | Sandhurst, L. | |
| Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Strabolgi, I. | |
| Feversham, E. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. | |
| Grey, E. | Doverdale, L. | |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Elton, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) | Teynham, L. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Cage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] | Windlesham, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Bathurst, E. | Carrington, L. | Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll) |
| Mansfield, E. [Teller.] | Clinton, L. | O'Hagan, L. |
| Radnor, E. [Teller.] | Cranworth, L. | Phillimore, L. |
| Hastings, L. | ||
| Bertie of Thame, V. |
§ "a service scheme") for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say:—
- (vi) the improvement of breeding of livestock;
- (vii) any purpose similar to any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (i) to (vi) of this subsection.
§ (2) A service scheme may make provision—
§ (a) constituting a body to administer the scheme (hereinafter referred to as "the authorised body") and enabling that body to do, for any of the purposes mentioned in the preceding subsection, such things (including the acquisition of any property by agreement and the borrowing of money) as may be authorised by the scheme, and to make, in respect of services performed by the said body, such charges as may be so authorised;
§ (f) for the reference to arbitration—
- (i) of any dispute on the question whether or not any sum is payable by
579 any person by way of contribution under the scheme, or on the question what sum is so payable; or - (ii) of disputes as to any such other matters as may be specified in the scheme.
§ (4) A service scheme may subject to the provisions of the next following section be made so as to apply throughout the United Kingdom or to any part thereof, and so as to restrict, by reference to any part of the United Kingdom, the exercise of powers, and the imposing of obligations, under the scheme; but nothing in this section shall authorise the making of a service scheme which applies only to Northern Ireland or to a part thereof, or which confers powers or imposes obligations by reference only to Northern Ireland or a part thereof.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "engaged in" and insert "concerned with." The noble Earl said: The opinion was expressed in another place that the right to request the making of a service scheme might inadvertently, by the definition of competent interests in Clause 31, be denied to auctioneers. This is not, of course, the intention of the Government, and the Amendment improves the drafting of subsection (1) by removing any uncertainty there may be on this point.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 7, leave out ("engaged in") and insert ("connected with").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), before "one or more of the following purposes, that is to say," to insert:
any purpose the carrying out of which is, in the opinion of the Commission, likely to promote efficiency, or economy in the production, marketing, or slaughtering of livestock, or in the preparation for sale, or the marketing, treatment or use of products of the slaughtering of livestock, or to increase the demand for livestock or such products as aforesaid, and in particular but without prejudice to the generality of this provision, for
§ The noble Lord said: I have been asked. to move this Amendment by the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers of Scotland. Your Lordships will see that Clause 31 empowers the Commission to formulate certain schemes for six purposes, and a seventh directly related to the preceding six. In another place the Minister indicated that it was proposed to provide facilities to enable authorised bodies, such as auctioneers, themselves to determine 580 through the medium of a service scheme the purposes affecting their interests, and it is quite clear that the Bill does contemplate service schemes for purposes other than the six purposes enumerated in the first subsection of Clause 31. For instance, it is difficult to see how the Commission could reduce the number of markets and consider them to be redundant, except by means of a service scheme, and I therefore trust that the noble Earl will accept my Amendment.
§ While I am on the subject of closing markets I would like to take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl if he can give me some assurance on the part of the Government that markets will not be closed unnecessarily. In the part of the country that I come from, the County of Aberdeen, we pride ourselves on the quality of our beef even more than the quality of ourselves. The County consists of a large area of country, with the City of Aberdeen the main railhead for the south. I can imagine great pressure being brought upon the Commission to centre all the market facilities in the City of Aberdeen. Even though the County were averse from it the local authority and the trade would be in favour of the scheme, as our beef is all for export to the south, and they concentrate their markets at the railway. The only people on the Advisory Committee who would be definitely against it would be the producers themselves. Now in the local markets—and in Aberdeen wherever two or three gather together there is a local market—the farmers get better prices for their meat, they can get it to the market in better condition, and the trade are perfectly willing to come and look over it in the local markets. Therefore I think it would be a great relief to the apprehension with which this measure is regarded in Scotland if the noble Earl would give me an assurance in regard to this matter.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 17, after ("for") insert the said words.—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEMy attitude towards this particular clause probably differs very materially from that of other noble Lords. Unfortunately, as I have indicated before, we suffer from extreme individualism in this country, to the detriment, as I believe, of our agricultural community, and if only there were more co-operation in many directions amongst 581 our farmers it would not be necessary to insert in the clause a good many of the activities specified therein. If, however, we are not going to develop schemes on our own by co-operative effort, to my mind, rather than they should be left undeveloped, it is just as well that the Government, through the Commission set up by this Bill, should take action in the matter. This appears to me to be in effect no more than a verbal Amendment, but a very valuable verbal Amendment, for this reason. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote a well-known legal Latin maxim, which would certainly seem to apply: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; in other words, it is extremely dangerous to specify any particular items in what I may call a programme, for fear of leaving out others which are equally important but left unspecified.
As the Amendment is framed it seems to me it has the great advantage that without doing any detriment to the clause as it stands it leaves it open to bring in other activities, ejusdem generis, which may be dealt with in a service scheme. Perhaps. I may quote in support of my contention words used by the noble Earl in regard to another clause. If he is in the least likely to oppose the Amendment—I hope not—I am going to venture to endeavour to hoist him with his own verbal petard, for just now, in answering another Amendment, he said that "the insertion of certain words might have a restrictive effect." That is exactly what I feel is likely to happen with regard to the wording of this clause, unless something to the effect of this Amendment is inserted. It is because I desire that this clause should not have a restrictive effect that I wish to support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe policy of the Government with regard to this clause is that the purposes for which certain schemes may be made should be set out with such precision that a Court can decide whether or not the scheme is valid, and also that no powers of regulation should be conferred by such a scheme except for the specific purposes mentioned in the next clause. The words of the Amendment are objectionable from both these points of view. In the first place they transfer from the Courts to the Commission the question whether the scheme is or is not a scheme 582 likely to make for efficiency on economy in the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of Clause 31, and in the second place the words are so general as to leave it doubtful whether they do or do not authorise a scheme conferring powers of regulation. If the words proposed by Lord Saltoun were inserted the Courts, when they came to consider them, might consider the words so wide as to permit a service scheme to include all sorts of purposes differing in character from those enumerated in the Bill. For that reason it is necessary that more precise language should be used in this instance, deliberately excluding certain activities—for example, those involving regulatory or trading powers—from being the subject matter of a service scheme. I hope that after these observations the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUNThe noble Earl not very long ago said, in the course of his remarks, that we must visualise the members of the Commission as being men of vision and high character; therefore I should have thought that they were very well worthy of the discretion that my Amendment would vest in them. But I have no wish to press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (vi). The noble Lord said: We are now engaged on what I feel is the most mysterious Part of the whole Bill. On that I will have a word to say later. All I want to do now is to move that there be removed from the powers that may be taken, the power to deal with the improvement of the breeding of livestock. If there is one branch of the industry at which we are generally recognised to be pretty good it is the breeding of livestock, and especially pedigree stock. We export certain breeds of cattle to every part of the world. Some are beef cattle, like the Aberdeens, some, like Ayrshires, are dairy cattle, and some, like Red Polls and Shorthorns, are dual purpose cattle. What is more, they are useful in various parts of this country, and all over the world. Some go to one part, some, for another purpose, to another, and they are generally recognised to be the best in the world. It may be said that our flying herds have not been as good as they might because inferior bulls have been used. We have now an Act in operation 583 eliminating the scrub bull, and already there has been a very great improvement there. I think it would be nothing less than a tragedy if we were to put into the power of a temporary caucus—what is called a "substantially representative" body—the right to deal with the breeding of livestock. I think everyone connected with the livestock industry would wish to see this paragraph moved out of the Bill.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, leave out paragraph (vi).—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ LORD HASTINGSI hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment, because the paragraph really is asking for trouble. The clause states that on the request of any body or bodies which appears to be substantially representative of the interests of any class of person engaged in marketing and slaughtering of livestock the Commission may make a scheme for, among other purposes, the improvement of breeding of livestock. So we are to have persons who are interested in the beef trade enabled to approach the Commission to interfere with the breeds. If that is not so I hope the noble Earl will say so.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRI strongly support this Amendment. It seems to me that it is the intention of this Bill to interfere with people who know their business. If British agriculture knows anything at all about livestock it does know how to produce good stock—stock that goes all over the world—and I do not think any Commission could possibly improve the methods of the livestock industry in this country, certainly not of the industry in Scotland. At a recent banquet in the City of London where barons of beef were in large demand three of them came from Aberdeen-shire—two from one of my own tenants, and one from another farmer not very far away. Certain counties, both in Scotland and in England, are famous for the livestock they produce, and to suggest that the livestock industry is to be interfered with and told how it can best produce livestock is very little short of an insult to the industry. This provision is entirely unnecessary.
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEAlthough I should be sorry to see this clause eliminated I myself am entirely in favour 584 of this Amendment. Indeed, if public bodies are going to enter into competition with private breeders in the raising of pedigree stock I am perfectly certain that it will cause great discouragement among those who are doing a very fine national work to-day, very often at a great loss to themselves, and our famous pedigree livestock of Great Britain would lose much of the reputation which it enjoys in overseas markets if it were known that pedigree livestock production was coming to be a municipal enterprise, or an enterprise carried on by companies, or even by Commissions with the encouragement of the Ministry of Agriculture, instead of by persons famous in the whole history of our industry, who have made the breeding of pedigree livestock so successful. I would make a special appeal to the noble Earl. We have often been told—and I have no doubt it is very flattering to our vanity—that we in this House are better acquainted with agricultural problems than those who sit in another place. We have now reached Clause 31, and so far as I know not a single Amendment has yet been accepted, at any rate, not a single Amendment representing agricultural interests, and I venture to think that a knowledge in this House unparalleled in any Parliamentary Chamber in the Empire should not be disregarded. I strongly hope, with some knowledge of the livestock industry throughout the Empire, and the immense value that it places on British enterprise in this connection, that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMWhen I first read Part VI of the Bill I was not led to believe that the phraseology of Clause 31 was as depicted by Lord Hastings. It is far from the intention of the Government to impose any interference upon producers in the formulation of schemes. The purpose of the schemes is to enable producers to make use of a service if they so desire, and the Minister has to take into consideration the preponderating opinion of any class in deciding whether or not a scheme should be brought into operation. If the producers do not want such a scheme it will not be brought into being. Being a farmer myself, and one closely interested in the production of pedigree stock, I fully recognise that Lord Cranworth would strongly resent any interference in the breeding of pedigree cattle; but interference is not the 585 intention of this Part of the Bill. Far from it. The initiative in the preparation of schemes must come from the industry itself. It is not going to be from opposing interests in the livestock industry that pressure will be brought to bear on producers to bring in a scheme: it is from the producers themselves that such a scheme will come. And the Commission's help is made available at this stage merely as an impartial body, to render assistance with the Livestock Advisory Committee and other bodies, in drafting a scheme. If the preponderating body of producers do not want a scheme, then no such scheme would be brought into operation. The main purposes of such a scheme are embodied in Part VI. Especially with reference to the breeding of livestock, opportunities can be provided for producers in any given area or throughout the whole country to register certain qualified bulls or to eliminate the dangerous practice that has been growing in the last few years of cows coming into the beef market and upsetting the quality of good beef in that market. Provision could be made for dairy cows to remain in the herds instead of coming into the beef side of the industry. It is the ancillary aspects of the industry of breeding livestock which a service scheme is especially thought to be likely to assist. I would be the first to agree with noble Lords if I felt that the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, were correct, but I do honestly feel that in this instance there has been some misapprehension.
THE EARL OF RADNORThe wording of this paragraph (vi) obviously seems to trespass on the acknowledged business of the pedigree breeding societies. I do not think there is any question about that. The noble Earl has said it is not meant to do so; it is meant to deal with ancillary questions. Surely these are all covered by the wording of paragraph (i) of subsection (1) which refers to
the encouragement, promotion or conduct of research and education in matters affecting any of the said activities.Surely that gives him quite enough scope without putting words in the Bill which definitely trespass on the breeding societies.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI cannot see that there is any question of trespass, because if your Lordships will 586 read the first words of the clause you will see that it says:
On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons engaged in one or more of the following activities …If there is no request, this paragraph will not come into operation, so I cannot see what: quarrel my noble friends have with the Government.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI cannot understand, in the first place, why the noble Earl does not agree to this. I put this to him, as a practical man, and if he will give me his word it could not happen, I may alter my opinion. I take it, when reading this thing, that the most likely body you are thinking of is a branch or branches of the National Farmers' Union. Let us take a county or a division in that county. There is a local breed, shall we call it the Devons, or the Herefords, or whatever it may be. The majority of the Farmers' Union say: "Here is a chance. We will go up to the Commission and say we ask to advertise our breed in this locality." Not only, if they get that through, will they get the money to advertise their breed and not any other, but they will make those breeders who are working another breed of equally good cattle in that area subscribe to this advertisement. Further than that, they will make them give up all kinds of figures, and their only appeal will be to the Commission, and the only definite qualification of that Commission is that they should know nothing about anything connected with agriculture.
§ EARL DE LA WARRReally, noble Lords have gone completely off the point. We are not discussing paragraph (iv). We are discussing the improvement of breeding of livestock. The noble Lord suggested that this is clearly an interference with the business of the breed societies. If this paragraph meant one tithe of what noble Lords have suggested it means, not merely would the Government give way, but this provision would not have been there. It is there for a very simple purpose. There may be an area where there are a lot of small breeders, not large breeders. There may be an area of small farmers whose standard of stock is deteriorating and it may be desired to encourage these men to get together and buy a bull. There may be six or eight men in a district, and 587 they will be encouraged by the responsible authorities to approach the Livestock Commission for help and organisation in the purchase of a bull. They get together, and they will be shown how to run a service of that kind. That is really the purpose of this provision, and it is a very useful purpose. It is all very well for those of us who are pedigree breeders to speak of having our business interfered with. Why should anyone interfere with our business if we are doing perfectly well? The noble Lord was right when he said we breed some of the best cattle in the world. Equally let us be realistic and recognise that to some of our markets come some of very nearly the worst cattle in the world. It is not the fault of these smaller men very often. This provision is designed to give them a helping hand and show them how to get together and help themselves. That is the purpose. I give your Lordships the undertaking that that is the purpose and meaning of this paragraph.
§ LORD CRANWORTHIs it really suggested that if a certain number of indifferent farmers have got bad bulls they are going to bring up a scheme to force their richer neighbours to provide money to get them better bulls? I have never heard such a thing in my life.
§ EARL DE LA WARRNothing of the kind. If there are a number of men who want to improve things—they are isolated perhaps and do not know how to get ahead—herre is a provision which will give them assistance in getting together. If they have a number of indifferent bulls, there may be one or two of them who think that if only they could get rid of these indifferent bulls and get one good bull it would be a very good thing. It is very often the fact that you have two or three people thinking on those lines, but nobody can quite get going. Here is a way of getting the initiative taken, and of helping these fellows to get together. It is a matter merely of bringing together a number of people who want to come together for a common service and who will then contribute to that common service.
§ LORD HASTINGSWhatever may be said and whatever may be the intention of this paragraph, it does give the opportunity to a body of busybodies to interfere with the breeding of livestock.
588 If that is not the intention, why do not the Government withdraw? After all, we are accustomed to the English language just as much as is the Front Bench, and you cannot read into this clause things that are not there. Here is an opportunity for interference with the breeding of livestock. If it means what the noble Earl says it means then why not put it so in the Bill? As it is it will have the result of interfering with the breeding of livestock. I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment, and that the Government will be compelled to put into the Bill something that will interpret their meaning in a way that an ordinary Englishman can understand, and not leave in what they do not mean.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThese six or eight people will have to go to the Commission and hoodwink them in order to get through. May I also point out that this clause is permissive and not mandatory? They "may" make and submit schemes to the proper Minister. There is, therefore, no obligation on them to do so.
§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEThere appears to be a certain amount of heat generating both on the Front Bench and on the Benches immediately behind. I would ask your Lordships, if I may say so, just calmly to consider the exact way in which this is likely to operate, or may conceivably operate. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has endeavoured to point out that first of all it is permissive, and that certain people, presumably those agriculturists mentioned, may make certain representations to this Commission. This Commission is not necessarily composed of agriculturists, and the Advisory Committee which advises the Commission is not necessarily composed preponderantly of agriculturists, and the people making representations to them may be people whose interests are by no means identical with those of the livestock producers or fatteners in this country. What I want to suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is this. I quite admit that what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has said is perfectly true. There are many respects in which a great deal can be done, even by means of these schemes, which badly wants doing to-day amongst the poorer and more inefficient livestock producers, but that work can be done, and is being done most efficiently in the matter of the improvement of livestock, by our 589 county councils all over England and Wales to-day. To my mind this is a function that the county councils ought to perform, and it ought to be left to them to do it, as in many cases they are doing it to-day with success.
What the livestock producer wants is a sufficient premium put upon his activities to enable him to bring to market the best possible stock, and that is provided for by this Bill. This Bill in an earlier clause puts a definite premium among the higher class, the most acceptable class, of fat stock by means of a subsidy. Having done that, and with such education as our county councils are providing through their local education committees, surely the breeders of pedigree livestock can be left alone to do this admirable work they have done up to date without possibly unfair competition on the part of the corporations or other bodies which are set up under this Bill.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI do not wish unduly to prolong the debate, but my noble friend Lord Bledisloe says that the Commissioners may not necessarily be agriculturists. But I would point out that the Minister has to be consulted by the Commission before the scheme can go through, and I take it the Minister of Agriculture knows something about the subject.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI quite appreciate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. Perhaps the sub-paragraph is not sufficiently clear and I shall be only too pleased to seek advice, and if there is any possible means of re-drafting the paragraph in order to make the principle more clear that shall be done. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord will permit me to refer to the matter again at a later stage.
§ LORD CRANWORTHThe noble Earl has made a very generous and a very nice offer, and I thank him very much for it, but he never answered my question by saying that what I had outlined could take place might not take place. If it could take place, then it would be a tyranny on the livestock breeder of a certain breed if a majority of breeders of other breeds in the county could force him out of the market or force him to contribute to advertise another breed. It is quite clear, in my opinion, that he 590 could not only be forced to pay to advertise another breed, but that he could be forced to disclose his books to show how much he had to pay. That seems to me neither more nor less than a tyranny, and I am afraid, so far as I am concerned, no words which would satisfy me could make this say other than it does say at present. If the noble Earl is quite sure that it is not to have the effect that I have suggested I cannot understand why he does not remove these offending words from the Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI apologise to the noble Lord for perhaps not having made one further point clear and that is that there is a very great difference between the proposals under the service schemes and the provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. The service schemes will be initiated and run by the industry. The authorised and representative body set up under a scheme for the purposes of improving the breeding of livestock would have no power under the scheme to compel individual producers to make use of the services provided. It is a question whether they would wish to come in with the preponderating influence or whether they would wish to remain out altogether. The only thing that is said is that, if there is a large preponderance of any class of persons in favour of a scheme, then the minority should contribute towards the expenses of that scheme. It is felt that there should be wide variations between the provisions under the service schemes and those under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe remaining Amendments on this clause in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 29, line 39, leave out ("mentioned in the preceding subsection") and insert ("for which the scheme may be made")
§ Page 31, line 2, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
§ Page 31, line 19, leave out from ("so") to ("but") in line 21 and insert ("that any powers or obligations under the scheme are conferred or imposed by reference to some part of the United Kingdom").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out Clause 31. The noble Lord said: 591 This clause, for the deletion of which I have put down an Amendment, has been a mysterious part of the Bill as far as I am concerned, and it remains just as mysterious as ever. I notice that in another place the Minister in charge of the Bill said that he could say a lot about what it meant, and that he did propose to say a little. He then said nothing at all. When it came to your Lordships' House the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that this was a very interesting part of it, and he left it at that. I venture to say that that was the wrong adjective. I think it is very dangerous indeed. There has been no reasonable explanation with regard to this part of the Bill so far as I know. If you read this clause you find that it speaks of "any body or bodies" "substantially representative." The noble Earl just now said something about a majority, but there is nothing about a majority in the Bill. The words are "substantially representative." They are to have certain powers over other people who will be, let us say, in a minority who do not agree with them. They have got their powers and they are able to use them in a way which will make people who do not agree with them pay, submit accounts and do everything of that sort. They will inflict their will on a minority and then they will go to the Commission. As we know the Commission are not to have any knowledge of livestock. They will easily get over them and enforce their will. The Commission are not going to be a very popular body. They will be one of the most unpopular bodies in the country, without doubt, if they are going to sanction schemes which will inflict the will of a majority on a minority which may be a very big minority and one shortly to become a majority. This particular Part of the Bill, I think, is going to be one of the most unpopular ever brought before Parliament.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 31.—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMPart VI of the Bill provides machinery by which the various interests concerned in the livestock industry can get together and make schemes for the provision of services which would be of mutual benefit. The initiative in the operation of these schemes must come from the industry itself or some particular section of the 592 industry. It is not mandatory upon any class that there should be a scheme. It is voluntary. Part VI does not compel any scheme, with one exception which I will reveal later. Its object is to enable producers, auctioneers and others to provide services for their mutual benefit and it is not designed to be a substitute for the Agricultural Marketing Acts. When a scheme has been launched those who do not desire to make use of the services provided cannot be compelled by anything in the scheme to do so. The exception is a scheme which may be promoted by auctioneers under Clause 32 to invest an authorised body with licensing powers so that where market by-laws under Part IV have reduced the number of sale rings in a market they can say who should or should not continue to operate in that market. This provision was made at the request of the auctioneers and it is possible for such a scheme to couple with the licensing powers arrangements for compensating auctioneers. It is, I think, manifest that there are no grounds for apprehension of injustice towards or unfair treatment of auctioneers by this particular provision. The safeguards for persons affected by these schemes are adequate and they are contained in the Fifth Schedule.
The scheme may make provision under Clause 31 (2) (f) for the reference to arbitration of any dispute arising out of the power of the authorised body to levy contributions. The procedure is intended, firstly, to ensure that no scheme shall come into force unless it is wanted by a majority of those concerned; and, secondly, to protect the interest of individuals. A scheme cannot continue in operation if there is a preponderating opinion in favour of revocation among contributors, or if the scheme is not serving the purpose for which it was made, or again if the continued operation of the scheme is contrary to the public interest. That is under Clause 34 (6). I am afraid that the difference that lies between the noble Lord and myself is one that is fundamental. The degree of co-operation that we think important to assist the livestock industry in making further economies and improvements in production and other matters is one of which he does not approve. Earlier in the proceedings this afternoon the Government were blamed for not endeavouring to use the producer in a co-operative 593 capacity for the better production of livestock. It is under this Part of the Bill that we think this can best be done, and that is the reason why this clause enumerates the particular ways in which schemes can be of use.
THE EARL OF RADNORI really can see no genuine purpose in adding to the collection of organisations dealing with agriculture. We already have organisations which agriculturists can use if they wish, and without legislation their members can do these things. I do not want to see the whole of Part VI struck out of the Bill. I would like to see Clause 32 retained, because it does make certain provisions for compensation to people displaced from employment. But I cannot see the purpose of overburdening the industry with all sorts of schemes arising under Clause 31.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHI note with some anxiety that the insurance of livestock is mentioned as a possible subject for a scheme. Surely it is going a little far if producers and auctioneers are not left free to effect their own insurances with the companies they prefer. Is this necessary, and is it really a considered part of the Government scheme?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, makes me believe that there must be some misconception in his mind. It is not an imposition upon the butchers nor upon the producers that an insurance should be made; it is the will and the wish combined of the butchers and the producers that a scheme for insurance should be inaugurated for their own benefit.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHWith a majority of the butchers, I understand.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHThat is a rather different matter.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI thank the noble Earl for his statement on this matter. I think he, also, has a slight misconception when he thinks that I am against the co-operation of the farmers. I might just as well accuse him of being inconsistent. It is not the co-operation with which I am at all concerned, but what I do not like about this clause is 594 that it gives power to a majority, perhaps small and perhaps temporary, to impose their will on others and make the minority pay. That is quite a new principle and I do not like it. I quite see, however, that it is no use my pressing this Amendment, and I will endure the position.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 32 [Special purposes for which service schemes may be made in connection with livestock markets orders and bye-laws]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert ("and the provisions of subsection (1) of the last preceding section which determine the circumstances in which a service scheme may be made and submitted to the appropriate Minister shall apply accordingly").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 33 agreed to.
§ Clause 34 [Provisions with respect to submission, confirmation, amendment and revocation of service schemes]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 32, after ("or") insert ("in").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 35 agreed to.
§ Clause 36 [Interpretation of Part VI]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 16, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("the") in line 17 and insert ("the expression 'the appropriate Minister' included").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 37:
§ The Fund for purposes of this Act, and payments to be made thereto and therefrom.
§ (2) Subject as hereinafter provided, there shall, as from the beginning of the appointed day, be paid into the Fund out of moneys 595 provided by Parliament such sums, not exceeding five million pounds in the aggregate in any one financial year, as the Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, may from time to time determine:
§ Provided that in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, there shall not, in the aggregate, be paid under this subsection into the Fund more than the number of pounds which bears to five million the same proportion as the number of days falling between the beginning of the appointed day and the end of the said financial year bears to three hundred and sixty-five.
§ (3) The Treasury may, during the period beginning on the appointed day and ending on the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, advance to the Fund, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, sums not exceeding in the aggregate one million pounds; but the amount of any sums advanced under this subsection to the Fund shall be repaid therefrom to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom not later than the end of the said period.
§
LORD HASTINGS moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
Provided also that whenever either in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-nine or in any subsequent financial year there shall (by reason of the aggregate of the subsidy payments computed in the manner prescribed by any such order as is referred to in subsection (2) of Section 4 (Subsidy to producers of fat cattle) of this Act and payable in respect of that year when added to the expenses otherwise incurred by the Minister for the purposes of Part II of this Act and payable in respect of that year under this section out of the Fund not amounting to the said sum of five million pounds) be paid under this subsection into the Fund for the purpose of defraying such subsidy payments and expenses a sum less than five million pounds, the difference between the sum so paid and the said sum of five million pounds shall also be paid into the Fund and be carried forward and become available for the purpose of defraying subsidy payments so computed and becoming payable in respect of the next or any subsequent year or years.
§ The noble Lord said: This is a long and very important Amendment. I put it down not only because I desire to include it in this Bill but also in order to ascertain what exactly the position is at the present time. The purport of the Amendment is to establish a permanent float—I think that word is the best one to use—so that the cattle industry and the market price of livestock may be stabilised over a long period of years. At the present time the whole of the subsidy made available by this Bill and by a previous Act 596 will not be required. It may not be required next year; but who can tell that within three years' time a good deal more than £5,000,000 will not be required in order to keep the market price of livestock on a reasonably even keel? The whole purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that this desideratum may come about. It has been said, if not officially, at least semi-officially, that the Bill already contains these provisions. It is, however, the intention of the Amendment that this should be done, and in another place the Minister of Pensions, speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, gave an assurance that it would be done. Without any necessity for speaking at any length while moving this Amendment, I would quite formally move it, but I would also invite the noble Earl to explain to us what is indeed the intention of the Bill: whether the Government are going to see their way to accept an Amendment of this character for the purpose of providing a fund which shall be available in the lean years that may be to come to a greater extent than the £5,000,000 per annum would lead us to suppose. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 2, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMIt is true that the White Paper on the provisional proposals for the Cattle Subsidy stated that any unexpended balance would be carried forward to the next year. But I do not wish there to be any misconception among noble Lords of what that statement meant. On the occasion of the Second Reading I did not qualify it to this extent. The position is that the sums which are to be paid into the Fund in each financial year will be a matter for the annual consideration of Parliament and will be proposed by Ministers, with the concurrence of the Treasury, in the light of the estimates which the Livestock Commission are required to furnish under Clause 38 of the Bill. Regard will therefore be had each year to the trend of fat cattle prices and to any other relevant factors in determining the aggregate amount of assistance to be provided for fat cattle producers in the succeeding year. The White Paper makes it clear that "the rates of subsidy that will be prescribed from time to time will take account of the market situation."
597 It does, not follow that Parliament will in future decide each year to provide the maximum sum of £5,000,000 laid down in the Bill. Your Lordships can, however, rest assured that Ministers are well aware that it would at once destroy all confidence among producers if a short view were taken and, directly prices showed some increase, there were a tendency to reduce the maximum of the subsidy forthwith. It can confidently be claimed that Ministers fully appreciate that the recent rise in the price of fat cattle is in part due to seasonal causes, that feeding-stuffs have risen quite considerably in the last few months, and that regard must be had to a fall in prices through any unforeseen circumstances. They also appreciate that it would destroy the producer's confidence if the ordinary and quality rates of subsidy paid under the two-tier system were to be changed at short periods. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
§ LORD HASTINGSI am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his full answer, but there are one or two points on which I should like to ask him to amplify even that answer. He made it quite clear to us that it was not the intention of the Government to approach the subsidy necessities—if I may use that word—in any niggardly spirit. I think, however, that he must have said, because I fancy that it is an essential part of the Bill, that at no time and in no year can the subsidy amount to more than £5,000,000. That is the absolute limit. Therefore, whereas Parliament will be entitled to, and doubtless will, take into consideration annually the price generally obtained for livestock and will not cut the £5,000,000 to a figure so low as to undermine confidence in the intentions of Parliament—I think that those are more or less the words that the noble Earl used—it is yet limited to the maximum of £5,000,000, no matter how ill the situation and how grave the slump might be in the year in which it was considering the amount of the subsidy. Is that not so?
§ LORD HASTINGSWell, our hope was and our intention is, if we can so contrive it, to arrange that any surplus which may exist between the £5,000,000 and the 598 sum which Parliament think it necessary to devote to subsidy payments in any one year may be carried forward in the account so that, always bearing in mind the limitation of £5,000,000, there would be in reserve a surplus from a previous year or years which could be added to the £5,000,000 and stabilise livestock prices by its addition. I am not quite clear whether the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government accepts that principle. He has not yet told me that it is impossible, and I am still hoping that in a further answer he may inform us that these words, or words to this effect, will be admissible in the Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI quite recognise the point of the noble Lord, but I think, as the noble Lord appreciates, we do intend to carry forward any funds that are available if the rate of subsidy approved by Parliament is such that a surplus is left over in any year; but it is not intended that the £5,000,000 allocated by Parliament should be increased in any one year. The noble Lord is perfectly correct when he says that £5,000,000 is a maximum sum, and is so to be regarded. The radius within which the subsidies can be suggested by the Livestock Commission and approved by Parliament is £5,000,000, and if the trend of the market is such that in a given year a higher subsidy is proposed—and that is stated in the White Paper—the surplus would go. to make up that figure, but it would not be the case that, if the rates of subsidy remained in future years as outlined in the White Paper to-day, the surplus carried forward from one year would be available finally for some future time when prices fell very heavily.
§ LORD HASTINGSIt is a most important matter, of interest to all livestock breeders, and I think we should have the matter clear. I understand that if Parliament were early in the Session to vote a sum, let us say of £4,500,000 in a particular year on the recommendation of the Commission, and prices so improved during the course of the year that only £4,000,000 was required, then, because Parliament had voted £4,500,000, the surplus of £500,000 would in fact be carried forward because Parliament had voted it.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)I do not profess to be an expert in mathematics, but I think the position is quite plain. The £5,000,000 is, as my noble friend has said, a top limit. If there is any surplus from that £5,000,000 in any year it is carried forward in the pool for any possible requirements, but it is not the intention of the Bill, as I understand it, that, in all circumstances and with complete disregard of what may be the conditions of the market in any particular year, Parliament should in all cases place £5,000,000 to the credit of the pool. In those circumstances I think my noble friend is perfectly right in saying that it would not be the intention of Parliament so to feed the pool whether market conditions required it or not; but I think it is clear that the Government would have full regard to the market conditions and the undesirable effects which would inevitably be produced upon agricultural opinion if precipitate changes were made on insufficient grounds.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: By an Amendment that I propose to move to Clause 56 the period during which the Cattle Fund would have to be financed would be reduced to a much shorter period than was originally anticipated. The Civil Contingencies Fund will therefore be in a position to bear such sums as will be required by the Cattle Fund in that shorter period. Consequently, subsection (3) is no longer required.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 3, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 38 agreed to.
§ Clause 39:
§ Apportionment of expenses of Commission.
§ 39. The Ministers may give directions, with respect to any lawful expenditure on the part of the Commission which is not specifically attributable to the discharge of any particular functions of the Commission, that such expenditure shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated to such extent as may be specified in the directions, as being incurred by the Commission for such purposes, or in the discharge of such functions, as may be so specified.
600THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe first of my Amendments to this clause is drafting, the second is consequential, and the third is drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 37, line 28, leave out ("lawful expenditure on the part of") and insert ("expenses lawfully incurred by")
§ Page 37, line 29, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
§ Page 37, line 30, leave out ("such expenditure") and insert ("those expenses").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to the clause "and for the purposes of this section, any payment made out of the Fund under subsection (6) of the last but one preceding section shall be deemed to form part of the expenses lawfully incurred by the Commission". The noble Earl said: The Amendment provides that payments out of the Fund to the Exchequer under Clause 37 (6) which are in fact expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the Commission, shall be deemed to be expenses incurred by the Commission. Ministers will be enabled by this Amendment to make a proper allocation of these expenses as between the different services in respect of which they are in the Minister's opinion incurred.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 34, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF RADNORI do not quite like the drafting of the noble Earl's Amendment, and I propose to amend it by leaving out "subsection (6) of the last but one preceding section" and inserting "subsection (6) of Section thirty-seven." The words in the noble Earl's Amendment are lengthy and rather unnecessarily complicated. It is much better to put in what the last preceding section is. I beg to move.
§
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out ("subsection (6) of the last but one preceding section") and insert ("subsection (6) of Section thirty-seven").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMI quite agree that the Amendment does appear somewhat cumbrous, but I am told by the Parliamentary draftsman that specific references to sections by number in Acts of Parliament are avoided 601 wherever possible, because if the section numbering is altered by subsequent Amendments it may lead to great confusion. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will leave the phraseology as it is.
§ Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 40 to 46 agreed to.
§ Clause 47:
§ Incidental provisions as to orders, regulations and schemes.
§ 47.—(1) Any order or scheme under this Act may make provision for such matters as are incidental and supplementary to any of the matters for which provision is made by the order or scheme by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Act.
§ (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding sub section, any livestock markets order or slaughter-house scheme may make provision—
§ (3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (4) of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, orders, regulations and schemes under this Act shall be deemed not to be statutory rules to which that section applies.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 3, leave out subsection (1)
Page 41, line 8, leave out ("Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD STRABOLGIIs the second Amendment drafting entirely? It seems to me to have some substance in it.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMReally these Amendments should be read in conjunction with the Amendment to line 41, to leave out subsection (3), and the proposed new clause to follow Clause 47.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMIt is proposed that subsection (2) should stand by itself and subsections (1) and (3) should form the new Clause 48. In the opinion of Parliamentary Counsel this will be an improvement in drafting.
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
602
§
LORD STRABOLGI moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
(d) for securing that where, by virtue of the order or scheme or of anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of its provisions, any person employed otherwise than in the permanent service of a local authority in connection with any market undertaking or auction or slaughter-house suffers any direct pecuniary loss by reason of the termination of his employment in that connection, then, unless some other provision for compensating him for that loss is made by an Act for the time being in force, or by any instrument having effect by virtue of an Act, compensation for that loss shall be paid to him by the employer in accordance with such principles as may be determined by the order or scheme; and
(e) for requiring the Commission to pay to any person the amount of any sums which that person is obliged to pay by way of compensation under any provisions of the order or scheme having effect by virtue of the preceding paragraph.
§ The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I am sorry to say, is still laid up, and I propose to move this Amendment in his place. Your Lordships will observe that in this Bill very elaborate arrangements are made for compensating anyone and everyone who may suffer as the result of this Bill. Servants of local authorities, property owners, market owners and professional men are all compensated if, as the result of this Bill, they are deprived of their living; the only people left out are the workmen concerned, clerks and other employees. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will agree that that is not as it should be, because I remember the very cogent argument of the noble Earl on Clause 24 with regard to compensation, and I hope therefore he will support me on this occasion when the same principle is involved. The Minister in another place used a lot of logic chopping argument about free contract and the workmen being free to leave at any time, all of which is of course perfectly true. Under our present system we have a free contract between master and servant, and either side can give notice. But it is a different matter when by Act of Parliament we deprive people of their living. That is no part of the system of free contract, and that indeed has been recognised by Parliament.
§ The Leader of the House was a distinguished member of another place when we passed Sir Eric Geddes' Bill, the London Passenger Transport Bill, and he 603 will remember, as I do, that compensation was provided there for railway servants. Where redundant or branch lines were closed down a system of compensation was provided for the servants of private enterprise; in other words, the railway companies. The London Passenger Transport Act contains exactly the same provision as I am bringing forward now. In that Act Parliament compensated the officers and servants of the private omnibus undertakings. Here you do not. You compensate officers and servants of local authorities and professional men, but you do not compensate the workmen, the clerks and others who are employed by auctioneers and in markets, who lose their living as the result of your Act of Parliament. The other example I will cite is that of the Electricity Bills. The various Electricity Bills contain exactly the same compensation provision.
§ Consider the case of the clerk of an auctioneer who by this Bill is deprived of his living, perhaps after thirty years' service—a man getting on in years, who finds it most difficult to find other work. It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to say he can easily find employment elsewhere; it is very difficult for a middle-aged man to find employment. If he had been comfortably employed, with pension rights, by a local authority, he would be compensated under this Bill, but if he is employed by a private individual or company there is no compensation for him at all, and you throw him on to the labour market. We think that is an unfair principle. This Amendment was heavily supported in another place. Nobody except the Minister for Agriculture resisted it. He brimmed over with sympathy and loving kindness for these men and said he wished he could do something of the sort, but it was creating a new precedent. Your Lordships are sometimes accused of being an undemocratic assembly. Here you have a chance of doing something for the under-dog. We have heard a great deal about the hard lot of cattle dealers and others during the discussions on this Bill. Here is a chance to do something for the man who has only his labour and his experience to lose, but it is just as serious for him as it is for the professional man.
604
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 40, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMThe noble Lord will remember that this point was raised at some length in another place where a strong differentiation was made between private employees and employees of local authorities. It is important to bear in mind why specific reference is made in the Bill to compensation to officers or servants in the permanent service of a local authority. Statutory provision is necessary in their case in order to enable a local authority to make payments of this kind. In the case of the employees of private individuals or firms no such statutory authority is necessary. The difference in the nature of the employment of local authority and private employees must also be kept in mind. Parliament has in a number of Statutes accepted the principle of special consideration for an employee of a local authority or statutory undertaking who in the ordinary way has a reasonable expectation of security of employment and of pension. The compensation of employees of private individuals or firms who may suffer any direct pecuniary loss by reason of the termination of their employment as a result of the operation of a livestock markets order or slaughter-house scheme, is a matter for domestic arrangement by the private firms or by representative associations of these firms. To give such employees a statutory right to compensation would raise issues which would have wide repercussions on other legislation, and it is a matter which should not in any case be dealt with in a Bill relating to a single agricultural industry.
My right honourable friend, when speaking on this matter in another place, said:
The second reason why I differentiate between private employers and local authorities—and public utilities rank very much the same—is that, while we have in the past, time and time again, recognised that peculiar degree of permanence and pensionability about the employees of local authorities, we have made provision on many occasions for compensation, when, by Act of Parliament, this apparently permanent employment has terminated. The question is, shall we carry this provision into the wide arena of private employment?My right honourable friend continued:There are two sides to the bargain. In ordinary cases, they make the bargain on the basis that the contract shall he terminable at 605 the will of either party, and that is fundamental in the present state of society, which is made clear if one examines the whole of our history and the present conditions.That is what my right honourable friend said in another place, and I feel that, as he spoke fundamentally on this issue, it would be difficult for your Lordships at this late hour to go into all the repercussions that this Amendment involves. It is felt that the best place to make an Amendment, even if the principle was agreed to, is not in an agricultural Bill of this description.
LORD STRABOLGIDo I understand that the noble Earl is going to look for a better place in which to take care of these humble people who will be displaced? It is all very well talking about fundamental principles of society, and all the rest of it, but Parliament in its wisdom did look after people in exactly the same position in the cases I have cited—the Electricity Supply Bill, the London Passenger Transport Bill, and the Railway Bills. This is the only Bill of the kind in which this principle has not been embodied, and it is important because we shall presently have the Coal Royalties Bill before the House. There will then be a tremendous lot of discussion, proper discussion, about the amount of compensation to be given as the result of people having their livelihood taken away by Act of Parliament. I hope attention will also be given to the position of workmen and clerks who may lose their employment. I Lope this matter will be reconsidered by the Government, and that possibly at another stage, or in another part of the Bill, some means may be found of looking after the auctioneer's clerk in the same way as you are looking after the auctioneer.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with those to lines 3 and 8 of page 41 and the proposed new clause which appears next on the Order Paper. Jointly they have the effect of splitting up into two clauses the subject matter of the present Clause 47. It is proposed that subsection (2) of that clause should stand by itself, and subsections (1) and (3) should form the new Clause 48.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 41, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after Clause 47, to insert the following new clause:
§ Incidental provisions as to orders, regulations and schemes.
§ "—(1) Any order or scheme under this Act may make provision for such matters as are incidental and supplementary to any of the matters for which provision is made by the order or scheme by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Act.
§ (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (4) of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, orders, regulations and schemes under this Act shall be deemed not to be statutory rules to which that section applies."
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 47 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 48 [Publication, validity, and commencement of certain orders]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 22, leave out ("any instrument purporting to be").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 5, after ("whom") insert ("such").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 49 to 54 agreed to.
§ Clause 55:
§ Application to Scotland.
§ 55. The following provisions shall have effect for the purpose of the application of this Act to Scotland:—
§ (1) The expression "High Court" means Court of Session, and the expression "county court" means sheriff;
§ (5) Any contribution by a local authority under a slaughter-house scheme towards the payment of expenses incurred thereunder by the Commission shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred in the provision of a slaughter-house;
607
§
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 6, leave out from ("The") to ("expression") in line 7.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved an Amendment to make paragraph (5) read as follows:
Any sums payable by a local authority by way of a levy imposed under a slaughterhouse scheme to defray the expenses incurred by the Commission in the preparation, promotion or operation of the scheme shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred in the provision of a slaughter-house.
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is also consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 22, leave out from ("Any") to the end of line 24, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 56 [Interpretation]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 6, leave out from ("which") to ("the") in line 8, and insert ("the expression 'the appropriate Minister' includes").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 23, leave out from ("livestock") to ("and") in line 25.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMMy next Amendment proposes to alter the appointed day for the purposes of Part II of the Bill—subsidy payments—from a day "falling before the end of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven," to the 1st August, 1937. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 33, leave out from ("be") to end of line 35, and insert ("the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
608§ First Schedule: