WHEAT (AMENDMENT) BILL. (Hansard, 27 June 1939)

HL Deb 27 June 1939 vol 113 cc731-56 731

§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into committee.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

732

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly:

§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair].

§ Clause 1:

§ Variation of standard price of home-grown millable wheat.

§ 1.—(1) In the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and in each third succeeding year, the Minister shall appoint a committee of three persons, who, after considering general economic conditions and the conditions affecting the agricultural industry, shall report to the Minister as to the desirability of making any alteration in the price which is for the time being specified as the standard price of home-grown millable wheat for the purposes of the Wheat Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act").

§ 5.1 p.m.

§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after "persons," to insert "of whom at least one shall have practical experience of the growing of wheat." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of some substance of which I gave an anticipation on the Second Reading. I think it is of importance to all those who are getting their livelihood out of the production of wheat. All of your Lordships who are interested in agriculture will probably agree with me that the Wheat Act has perhaps done more than any other Act not only to maintain a certain amount of arable cultivation but also to maintain a nucleus of agricultural workers on the land. The essence of that Act lies in the price that has to be obtained for wheat. In this Bill that is placed in the hands of a Committee of three people who will have almost supreme powers of accepting that price. It is quite true that the Minister will be behind that Committee, but it will obviously be very difficult for him to override whatever they may decide. And who are these three wheat dictators to be? We have no indication in the Bill at all, but perhaps it would be a fairly intelligent anticipation if we suggested that this Committee would consist of two lawyers and one retired financier. That, at all events, would probably be the composition of the Committee.

§ I am frightened at the present moment in regard to this Bill at the big guns that will be brought into operation with respect to this price. You have not got to go very much further than this House when you consider the size of those guns 733 and the ammunition they will use. Let me first of all draw your Lordships' attention to the case of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who, as we are aware, is a most keen agricultural exponent, most persuasive, and without doubt possessing the prestige of a late Minister of Agriculture with great knowledge of the subject. Now Lord Addison has produced a book called, I think, A Policy for British Agriculture and a very good book it is. I sincerely trust that those of your Lordships who are interested in agriculture will find time to read it. Apart from certain passages, which are better left out, it is a most admirable book. I find in that book, which will certainly be studied by these three gentlemen, on page 178: 45s. is undoubtedly higher than efficient husbandry demands. And on page 226: a price of about 37s. 6d. would be sufficient. That is an opinion that carries great weight, but I venture to say that more than 90 per cent. of practical agriculturists and wheat growers would agree with me when I say that a good farmer, on an average farm, growing wheat at 45s. a quarter, year in and year out, with the present wage of agricultural labour, would just about make both ends meet, and no more. I think I could get large support among practical farmers for that statement.

§ I go a little farther. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, a man of very great influence, whose opinion will doubtless be considered influential not only for his personality and his popularity, but also for the fact of his very fine stud of race horses, has also written a book—a book of some length—and the gist of that book is that all arable agriculture in England is a mistake, and that the whole of England ought to be handed over for the production of milk and eggs with a few vegetables thrown in for the sake of allotment holders. Now the noble Viscount, if he went among practical farmers who have to get their living from the soil, and even if he went among daily farmers, would find it extremely difficult to get a large percentage of them to agree with him.

§ There is a second point that I want to bring to the notice of your Lordships, and that is this. There is a growing feeling that the practical man who has his living 734 to make has not been sufficiently considered, that his opinion has not been sufficiently asked. There has been a much greater tendency to take as gospel the word of the theorist and the word of the expert scientist than to take that of the economist, and you hear this growing flood of criticism, which shows that if the practical man had been consulted there would have been fewer mistakes and failures in some of these schemes. You can hear that on the farm, you can hear it in the market place, and you can hear it growing even in the Press. I know that the noble Earl may say: "Oh, but the National Farmers' Union has been consulted about this Bill, and we always consult the National Farmers' Union whenever we can." I am aware of that, and I very greatly value it, but I venture to suggest, in the first place, that all good practical farmers do not, of necessity, come to Bedford Square. Some practical farmers stay on their farms. And there is a second point, which is that it is not the function of the National Farmers' Union to decide, in their final issue, the details of these various schemes and various Bills which come before the country.

§ No one has a greater admiration than I have for that splendid body of civil servants in Whitehall Place. I do not suppose there is a better body of civil servants in any Department in this country, and I feel that the noble Earl will agree with me there, but I wonder sometimes how many of those civil servants he would back to make a living off a hundred-acre farm. Perhaps not a very great number. The noble Earl, I must admit, showed no great enthusiasm when I hinted at this Amendment on the Second Reading, but I am venturing to hope that having thought it over meanwhile, he will have changed his opinion. I sincerely trust that he will see his way to accept it. After all, it is not a very great thing to ask. There are three men who have the livelihood of tens of thousands of their fellow-countrymen in their hands, and one of those three should be in a position to know what he is talking about. This Amendment is moved purely in the interests of the Bill, and I think its acceptance would give some measure of confidence to an industry which is considerably in need of that commodity. I beg to move.

735

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line to, after ("persons") insert ("of whom at least one shall have practical experience of the growing of wheat").—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR
I do not want to delay your Lordships long, but I would like to support my noble friend in the Amendment he has moved. His arguments are very potent, and, as he rightly says, it is a very small alteration in the Bill, but it will be a very big one from the point of view of those who grow wheat. I think that your Lordships will agree that if such an Amendment were inserted in the Bill it would undoubtedly give a great deal of confidence to the wheat growers. May I add one further argument? There is a practice in this country—I think in judicial matters particularly—that where the subject is one of peculiar technical complexity the tribunal should be assisted by technical assessors. Although that procedure is perhaps undesirable in this case, what is proposed by my noble friend is somewhat analogous, because, after all, the growing of wheat is a very highly technical question. It is only those who grow wheat, who know the details and the ins and outs, who can assess the arguments for and against any question of an increase in price. If the noble Earl will look at it in that way I think he will see that there is no reason why the Committee of three should not still be a most excellent body. There are amongst those who understand the growing of wheat many people who know a great many other things besides how to grow wheat and are perfectly capable of acting in the semi-judicial capacity which will be called for here. I hope the noble Earl will receive the Amendment sympathetically.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHANI)
My noble friend Lord Cranworth has told your Lordships that in the Second Reading debate he commented with approval upon the size of the Standard Price Committee, saying that if it was not possible to have a Committee of one a Committee of three was the next best thing. I think I am correct in saying that by contrast he criticised the size of the Wheat Commission and the proposal that that Commission should be extended from 736 seventeen to twenty members. The functions of this Committee are not solely to arrive at a price level that is in the opinion of producers satisfactory or remunerative. It has many other functions to perform. Perhaps the noble Lord will be interested to know the terms of reference of the previous Committee, if he happens not to have looked them up. That Committee consisted of three members, Sir John Beale, Sir Harry Peat and Mr. W. R. Smith. That Committee had to deal not only with wheat growing and the costs of wheat production, but with domestic agricultural conditions generally, with the trend of agricultural wages as well as the world wheat situation, general economic conditions and the ability of the consumer to bear the cost of the quota payments. Therefore, it will be appreciated that, as my noble friend the Earl of Radnor said, although this may appear to be a small Amendment, it would have a great effect upon those farmers who produce wheat. It would also affect other sections of the wheat industry who are represented on the Wheat Commission.
If this Amendment were accepted, and one person of the three who make up the Committee of reference had to be appointed because of technical and specialised knowledge in relation to the production of wheat, then undoubtedly—I believe my noble friend Lord Harlech will bear me out in this—other sections of the wheat industry such as importers of flour, millers, and those who manufacture cereal breakfast foods, would all wish to have on the Committee persons with equal technical knowledge. So the praise which the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, gave because the Committee is the right size would have to be withdrawn, because the Committee would have to become in fact as large as the Wheat Commission with regard to which he made some criticism. I fully recognise the substance of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, with his usual wit and humour, laid before your Lordships this afternoon, that the producer of wheat, whether he be on a large or a small holding, wishes his facts and figures to be laid before responsible persons who will adjudicate upon the price level for the next three years. The noble Lord said it was no answer to say that the Committee would discuss the matter with the National Farmers' 737 Union. But the National Farmers' Union is the representative organisation for all farming interests, and I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that legislation of this character can only be satisfactory if there is negotiation with the accredited representative organisation of the industry.
If we take the opinion of a certain class of farmers, who may be on moderate wheat land, as to their cost of production, we must also ascertain the facts relevant to better areas unless we are to arrive at a price by a very haphazard method. If there are any special considerations bearing on the work of the Committee which only a farmer can be expected to know, I would submit to your Lordships that it is the responsibility of the farmers' organisations to bring the relevant information and considerations to the notice of the Committee. There will be ample opportunity for such representations to be made. It is not at all unusual to have a non-representative Committee to advise on matters involving technical considerations of a very intricate kind. In relation to matters equally technical in other industries it is usual to appoint a committee consisting of members who would be above any suspicion of partiality. If a precedent is going to be made for partiality on behalf of those who produce wheat, it is bound to follow that other sections of the industry who have different responsibilities would want to have representation, and so the Committee of reference would become unduly large. With that explanation I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
I have heard the reply of the noble Earl with considerable regret, because as far as I can judge this clause does not give scope for the terms of reference of the previous Committee.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
If the Committee are going to fulfil their functions they must have terms of reference similar to those of the last Committee

§ LORD CRANWORTH
I thank the noble Earl for that information. I should not have guessed it if he had not told me. It does not appear in the Bill. I think the noble Earl must have misunderstood what I said about the National Farmers' Union and their being consulted. There could not possibly be a 738 better body to do it. What is worrying me is that I am doubtful of the ability of this Committee to weigh the evidence that they get before them. They are going to get evidence from the other side: they will get the evidence of people who have made a considerable profit out of wheat, and how have they made it? They have made it by dismissing the men who worked on the land, by bringing tractors on to it, by working the heart and soul out of that land, by leaving it a desert and going on to other land. Those men have made a large sum of money, I admit, but what they have perpetrated ought to be a crime, not anything to be proud of. The profits they have made will, however, be brought before this Committee, and I remain very doubtful whether the Committee are actually in a position from personal knowledge to weigh the evidence, and whether they can fulfil the functions for which they are intended. Of their impartiality I have not the least doubt, but of their ability to weigh evidence on technical matters I have a very real doubt. If the noble Earl cannot give way on this matter, which seems a small one to me, generally speaking, but which I admit is one of importance to those who have their livelihood in wheat production, I hardly feel it is worth taking the trouble to divide your Lordships on the Amendment, much as I regret the decision which was taken before I moved it.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

§ Clause 6:

§ Quota payments in respect of flour.

§ (3) Subject as hereafter in this section provided, and to the provisions of Section nine of this Act, the amount of the quota payments to be made in respect of any flour shall be calculated at the following rate, that is to say:

(a) the standard amount,
(b) for each hundredweight of the flour.

§ (6) In the case of flour that either—

(a) is destined for livestock; or
(b) is of a class to which the provisions of this subsection are applied by by-laws;

§ 5.23 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (3), after "provisions," to insert "of subsection (7) of the next 739 succeeding section and." The noble Earl said: Before speaking on this Amendment, perhaps I may be permitted to express an apology to the Committee for the formidable array of Amendments that stand in my name. I know that it is unsatisfactory to your Lordships to have such a large list of Amendments in the name of a person who is in charge of a Bill. I can only explain the reason for them, which is that Parliamentary counsel have been unusually occupied in the formulation of agricultural legislation, and they therefore required an opportunity for a second revision. It also happens that the Wheat Commission are at present preparing their by-laws, to be brought into operation as soon as this Bill is placed on the Statute Book. The bylaws have raised certain technical points in the Bill, which the legal advisers of the Wheat Commission have brought to our notice. It is for that reason that there are so many Amendments standing in my name. This Amendment to Clause 6 is consequential on a new subsection (7) to Clause 7 which stands in my name, and if it meets with the convenience of your Lordships I suggest that discussion on that Amendment be postponed until we reach Clause 7.

§ Amendment moved— Page 6, line 16, after ("provisions") insert ("of subsection (7) of the next succeeding section and")—(The Earl of Feversham.)

LORD STRABOLGI
Might I ask the noble Earl, in connection with this long list of Amendments—as he says, a very formidable list in a Government Bill—whether it is the fact that they do not alter the principle of the Bill? We understand that, according to the view of the noble Earl and his advisers, they are really only matters of machinery and drafting. I think I am right is saying that.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
I am obliged to the noble Lord for asking that question. All the Amendments which stand in my name are either on points of administrative machinery or are drafting Amendments.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved in subsection (6), after "In the case of flour," to insert "(not being such a sub- 740 stance as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection or in subsection (7) of the next succeeding section)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment has a double purpose. It is in part consequential upon the new subsection (7) which I shall move later to Clause 7; and secondly, it is designed to exclude from the scope of subsection (6) any substance which comes within the scope of subsection (5). It is purely a machinery Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 7, line 6, after ("flour") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The next Amendment is drafting.

§ Amendment moved— Page 7, line 19, after ("flour") insert ("is not destined for livestock but").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 7 [Exemption from quota payments of certain substances destined for livestock]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The first Amendment to this clause is drafting.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 2, leave out ("that satisfies the following conditions") and insert ("as to which the following conditions are fulfilled").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The next is consequential.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 13, leave out from ("than") to ("the") in line 14, and insert ("such mixtures as aforesaid or cut wheat or multure meal").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: (7) In the case of a milled wheaten substance being flour produced in the United Kingdom and destined for livestock but not being such a mixture as aforesaid or cut wheat or multure meal, the amount of any quota payments to be made in respect thereof, in lieu of being calculated by reference to each hundredweight of the substance as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section six of this Act, shall be calculated by reference—

(a) if conditions (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of this section are fulfilled in relation 741 thereto, to each hundredweight of a quantity equal to four times the excess of the weight of the wheaten content thereof over three-quarters of the weight of the substance; or
(b) if those conditions are not so fulfilled, to each hundredweight of a quantity equal to twice the excess of the weight of the wheaten content thereof over one-half of the weight of the substance:

Provided that, if the substance falls within subsection (5) of Section six of this Act, the amount of any quota payments to be made in respect thereof shall be an amount calculated in accordance with that subsection or an amount calculated in accordance with this subsection, whichever is the less.

§ The noble Earl said: There is a small point of substance in this Amendment. It is designed mainly to meet the small millers who might accidentally include rather more than 50 per cent. of wheat meal, or alternatively a little over 75 per cent. of rolled or flaked wheat, in their provender mixtures. Suppose that such a miller intended to make up a mixture of 50 per cent. wheat meal and 50 per cent. barley meal but accidentally included 51 per cent. of wheat meal in the mixture. As the clause now stands, he would have to pay a quota payment on the whole of the 51 per cent. of wheat meal purely owing to the excess of 1 per cent. The new subsection provides that in such circumstances the 49 per cent. of barley meal would exempt an equal quantity—that is, 49 per cent.—of wheat meal, leaving quota payment to be paid only on the remaining 2 per cent. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 8 [Provisions as to substances treated as destined for livestock]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
With your Lordships' permission, I suggest that all the Amendments to Clause 8, with the exception of the new subsection (4), be taken together. They are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 9, line 34, after ("and") insert ("(subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section)")

§ Page 10, line 3, leave out from the first ("substance") to the end of line 4, and insert ("should be used as food for livestock or as material from which constituents of goods to be so used (and of such goods only) were to be derived")

742

§ Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("substance") to the end of line 12, and insert ("or a part thereof or goods having constituents derived therefrom or from a part thereof, has or have been used otherwise than as food for livestock or as such material as aforesaid,")

§ Page 10, line 14, after ("substance") insert ("or of that part thereof, as the case may be,")

§ Page 10, line 15, leave out ("was so") and insert ("or that part thereof or those goods, as the case may be, was or were")

§ Page 10, line 17, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the substances or of that part thereof, as the case may be,")

§ Page 10, line 18, leave out from the third ("the") to the end of line 19, and insert ("substance, or in that part thereof or in those goods, as the case may be, was vested at the time of the use thereof as aforesaid")

§ Page 10, line 21, after ("substance") insert ("or in that part thereof or in those goods, as the case may be,")

§ Page 10, line 23, leave out ("thereto") and insert ("to the substance")

§ Page 10, line 26, after ("substance") insert ("or in that part thereof or in those goods, as the case may be,")

§ Page 10, line 29, leave out lines 29 to 35.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ 5.29 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that a milled wheaten substance has in fact been used after a delivery or importation thereof as food for livestock, or as material from which constituents of goods so used (and of such goods only) were derived, although the condition aforesaid is not fulfilled in relation to the delivery or importation thereof, then, if that fact is shown before the determination of the questions relating to liability for quota payment referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the substance shall he treated for the purpose therein mentioned as a substance destined for livestock, and, if that fact is shown thereafter, all such adjustments shall be made, by repayment of any quota payments made or otherwise, as may be requisite for putting the miller or importer, the Commission and all other persons concerned (if any), in the like position as if the substance had been so treated.

§ The noble Earl said: The object of this new subsection (4) is to provide machinery to give effect to the agreed intention that there shall be no quota payment liability in respect of certain milled wheaten substances, or that the amount of the liability shall be reduced provided that they are used as food for livestock. As Clause 8 is now drafted, a milled wheaten substance can only be treated as 743 destined for livestock if the miller or importer has at the time of the delivery or importation of the substance an intention that it should be used as food for livestock. It is possible that an importer might import some low-grade flour and, at the time of importation, he might not have made up his mind whether to use it as food for livestock or, say, for the manufacture of dog biscuits. Again, he might possibly import the flour intending to use it for dog biscuits but subsequently change his mind and use it as an ingredient in a food for livestock. As the clause now stands, there is no provision for reduction of the rate of quota payment in respect of such substances, notwithstanding the fact that they have in fact been used as food for livestock, and so the new subsection is designed to enable the Wheat Commission to refund quota payments in these circumstances, provided they are satisfied that the substance has actually been used as food for livestock.

§ Amendment moved: Page 10, line 35, at end, insert the said new subsection (4).—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ LORD HARLECH
The Wheat Commission had some difficulty on this subject. It was brought to our attention that there is an inequality in the existing Act, and under the Bill as drafted, between the position of the flour importer and the home miller, because it is quite clear that as the Bill was drafted, the flour miller can get the exemption from quota payment at the time of delivery, when he delivers the parcel of wheaten substances to a farmer or corn merchant for consumption by livestock, but the flour importer at the ports will not get exemption unless he has declared that the substance is for livestock only at the moment of importation. It is not very easy to draft a clause to get them on an equality, but it is obviously only a fair thing to attempt to do it, and the Department deserve congratulation on dealing with the matter in an ingenious way. We are advised that the new subsection can be administered satisfactorily, and it appears to be a good piece of machinery to give effect to the underlying intention of the Bill and put millers and flour importers on an equality.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
I do not quite understand this Amendment. 744 About half way down the Amendment includes these words: "by repayment of any quota payments made or otherwise." What does "or otherwise" mean?

§ LORD HARLECH
It may possibly be where there has been no payment, but only an obligation to pay has been entered into.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
Then there cannot be any repayment.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The explanation may be that it is a book transaction—that no payment has actually been made, but it is lodged on account of the miller. If the noble Viscount desires, I will make further inquiries.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The other two Amendments to Clause 8 are drafting Amendments.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 10, line 39, leave out ("pay") and insert ("make")

§ Page 10, line 41 leave out ("pay") and insert ("make").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

§ 5.34 p.m.

§ Clause 9 [Provision for avoidance of duplication of quota payments in respect of flour].

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
All the Amendments to Clause 9, standing in my name, are drafting Amendments.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN
Then I will put the Amendments en bloc.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 11, line 6, after ("that") insert ("a liability to make")

§ Page 11, line 6, leave out ("have become payable")

§ Page 11, line 8, after ("otherwise)") insert ("arose")

§ Page 11, line 16, leave out ("became payable") and insert ("accrued due")

§ Page 11, line 25, leave out ("been payable") and insert ("accrued due")

§ Page 11, line 31, leave out ("be payable") and insert ("accrue due")—(The Earl of Feversham).

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

745

§ Clause to [Modification of technical provisions relating to quota payments in respect of flour]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
This Amendment is consequential.

§ Amendment moved— Page 12, line 28, after ("defined") insert ("and, in connection with any modification of those fractions, the provisions of subsection (7) of that section").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (7), to insert: (8) An order under this section may be made either generally or in relation to particular classes of milled wheaten substances, and may make different provision in relation to different classes of such substances. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to give greater flexibility to the clause, and to ensure that any modifications of the technical provisions relating to quota payments which may be made under Clause 10 are not more drastic than may be absolutely necessary.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 5, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 11:

§ Quota payments in respect of certain cereal breakfast foods.

§ 11.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to food of any of the classes of food for human consumption commonly known as cereal breakfast foods, being food that has a wheaten content, is produced in the United Kingdom, and is as to its wheaten content produced by the application, by the manufacturer of the food, of a single operation (whether being milling or not) to wheat, or by the application by him of a series of such operations the first of them being an operation applied to wheat.

§ 5.36 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by the manufacturer of the food." The noble Viscount said: Although the Amendments in my name may at first sight appear somewhat formidable, the point is really a simple one. To begin with, the Minister has accepted the view that manufacturers of breakfast foods, now brought within the scope of the Wheat Act for the first time, should have a right of appeal to a Reference Committee against paying the quota. In another place the Minister 746 of Pensions said that "breakfast food" was a well-known trade term, and not in any way liable to misinterpretation. Under that term fall such products as "Shredded Wheat," "Tribrek" and "Bemax." Now, although all breakfast foods, provided they have a wheaten content, are charged to quota, either specifically under this clause or generally under Clause 6, the right of appeal is granted only to those falling within the definition given in this clause. In order to fall within this definition it is essential that the maker of breakfast food should start his process with whole wheat.

§ I can best illustrate the effect of this requirement by reference to two typical breakfast foods—namely, "Shredded Wheat" and "Tribrek." Up to the present, "Shredded Wheat" has escaped the quota, although the Minister stated that the Wheat Commission intended to test the matter in the Courts under the old definition. "Tribrek," on the other hand, has always borne the quota. The effect of this Bill will be to perpetuate that anomaly. While "Shredded Wheat" is granted the right of appeal, because the process of manufacture is started with whole wheat, the makers of "Tribrek" start the process with wheat materials, which they purchase from millers in this country. The Minister says that "Tribrek" has always borne the quota, and therefore there is no hardship in barring its manufacturers from the right of appeal. Let me turn to the case of "Bemax," which was exempted under the principal Act and is now, like "Shredded Wheat," subjected to quota for the first time. Instead of receiving, as "Shredded Wheat" does, the right of appeal, "Bemax" is barred because it is manufactured not by a process starting with whole wheat, but from an intermediate product. In attempting to justify this the Minister of Pensions said that the escape might be said to be accidental, and for that reason the escape should not be continued. Surely, as a logical sequence, the past escape of "Shredded Wheat" might equally be said to be accidental.

§ In another place none of the points which I have put were dealt with by Government spokesmen, except in general terms, that is, that the Government desired to be most careful about exemptions. The Minister of Pensions actually said that "those who make flour from 747 silage might come in." But that statement cannot be reconciled with the Minister of Agriculture's pronouncement about there being no difficulty in defining breakfast foods, as of course by no stretch of the imagination could flour made from silage be considered a breakfast food well-known to the trade as such. The Minister of Pensions also said: Once the door was opened it would be open to every person to appeal, so why should millers be excluded? But if a miller makes a breakfast food—and this clause deals entirely with breakfast foods—he would not be excluded. No, it is not the miller who would be barred, it is the people who are not millers, although they use miller's products as the basis of production, who are barred owing to a mere technicality.

§ Although the debate on this subject in another place was lengthy, I do not think that the points which I have submitted to your Lordships were adequately discussed; in fact, if I may say so without offence, some irrelevant matters were introduced, such as beer, which has no bearing on the issue of breakfast foods. It is perfectly true that beer used to be drunk at breakfast, but that does not make it a food. So it is quite impossible to gather what the Minister's real answer would have been. He did say, however: I myself had the pleasure of meeting a deputation of manufacturers and importers of these breakfast foods, and I was confirmed in my opinion, having heard them, that it would probably be better that the whole argument should go to the Reference Committee, who could devote time and attention to it. I want your Lordships to bear in mind that it does not follow that because appeals are made to the Reference Committee, the Reference Committee will uphold them, because they may be dismissed. In conclusion, I should like to say that the subsections which I have placed on the Paper are merely machinery, and are consequential on the two first Amendments, which I hope your Lordships will see your way to accept.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 21, leave out ("by the manufacturer of the food").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

§ 5.43 p.m.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
My noble friend Lord Bertie commenced his remarks by informing your Lordships that this was a very simple issue. I beg to 748 differ from him; I found it to be a very intricate issue. Perhaps I can best explain the objections to my noble friend's Amendment if I first give your Lordships the reasons for Clause 11 as it at present stands, and then go on to consider separately the cases of "Bemax" and "Tribrek." Clause 11 makes certain cereal breakfast foods having a wheaten content liable for quota payment as from the 1st August, 1940, unless the Minister, on the advice of the Reference Committee, makes an Order granting such foods continued exemption. One of the conditions which a breakfast food has to satisfy in order to come within the clause is that it should be manufactured from whole wheat, and not from flour or any other form of milled wheat. The clause therefore applies to such breakfast foods as "Shredded Wheat" and wheat flakes. The Wheat Commission have not so far levied quota payments on such foods, but protests against their exemption were received from associations representing the millers and bakers, on the grounds that these foods competed with bread and other articles manufactured from flour which had borne the quota payment. I think my noble friend Lord Harlech will bear me out when I say that the Wheat Commission were advised that it was possible that wheat flakes and similar breakfast foods were, strictly speaking, liable for quota payment, but the Wheat Commission refrained from testing this matter in the Courts in view of the prospect of amending legislation, which would clarify the whole question.
The Wheat Commission proposed that all the wheaten breakfast foods should be made liable for quota payment. The manufacturers of "Shredded Wheat" and similar breakfast foods protested to the Minister, however, that it was unfair to make them liable for quota payments when other breakfast foods not made from wheat—such as corn flakes and "Rice Krispies"—would continue to be free. The Minister felt there was much to be said on both sides, and, therefore, decided on the procedure of Clause it, which makes such foods prima facie liable for quota payment after a given date, but enables particular foods to be given continued exemption on the advice of the Reference Committee.
The manufacturers of "Bemax" and "Tribrek" contend that they should 749 have the same "right of appeal" to the Reference Committee, and it would be desirable to consider individually the case of these two products, because in the statement that was sent to members of your Lordships' House it was implied that the same circumstances prevailed in the case of each of these manufactured foods, "Bemax" and "Tribrek."
Take "Bemax" first of all. This is manufactured from wheat germ, and wheat germ used in the manufacture of "Bemax" has so far escaped liability for quota payment, as it has come within the definition of "wheat offals" in the 1932 Act. The Wheat Commission contend that the first freedom from liability of wheat germ used in this product called "Bemax" was accidental, and is therefore unjustifiable. The intention of the 1932 Act was really that only wheaten byproducts used as animal feeding stuffs should escape a liability to quota payment. Therefore it follows that wheat germ, like other forms of wheat offals, should not escape liability when used for human consumption.
In the case of "Tribrek" that is on altogether a different basis for it is undoubtedly included amongst the group of foods commonly known as breakfast foods, and is manufactured by the firm of Huntley and Palmer from wheat meal, that is to say, flour, which is bought from a miller. The miller has to pay quota payment on the flour, and the miller passes on the quota charge to Messrs. Huntley and Palmer in the price of the flour; thus "Tribrek" ever since it was put on the market some years ago has borne the quota charge and, as far as the Ministry know, the manufacturers made no complaint of this, neither did they allege any hardship until a few weeks ago. The whole intention of the provisions of the Bill governing quota payments is to widen and not to restrict the range of human foodstuffs which has to bear quota payment and it would, therefore, be contrary to the intention of the Bill to grant exemption to a substance which has borne quota payment in the past, especially as there is no evidence that any hardship has resulted thereby.
The provisions for conditional exemption from quota payment in Clause 11 relate to a special group of foodstuffs which have not borne quota payment in the past. If, however, the principle were 750 once conceded that flour was to be granted exemption from quota payments on the condition that it was used for manufacturing certain kinds of foodstuff such as "Tribrek" or "Bemax," it would be difficult to know where to stop. Manufacturers of ordinary biscuits might, for example, claim with some justification that they should, in equity, get a chance of exemption from quota payment on their flour, since the finished products had to be sold in competition with non-wheaten foods such as "Ryvita" and oatmeal biscuits. Noble Lords will appreciate that the wider the field of exemption from quota payment the greater is the burden thrown on the bread eater, that is, the ordinary consumer. I have felt it was necessary to give a long and somewhat intricate explanation to my noble friend, because this matter was not clear in another place, and I know that the manufacturers concerned have made representations on Clause 11, and in response to those representations it was desirable to give a full explanation in your Lordships' House.

§ 5.50 p.m.

§ LORD ASKWITH
I must say I do not understand the noble Earl's reply. It does not seem to answer what my noble friend Lord Bertie spoke about. Lord Bertie does not ask that these people should escape taxation or quota payments altogether. What he asks, as I read the third Amendment he has put down on this clause, is that if something has been already pa id that shall be taken into account and deducted so that the manufacturer should not be made to pay twice over.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
If I may interrupt, the third Amendment is consequential on my noble friend's first two Amendments. It does provide that payment should not be made by the miller twice over, but that will not arise if the noble Lord's first Amendment is not accepted.

§ LORD ASKWITH
As the noble Earl has said, it is a complex question and difficult to understand, but it did not appear to me that what the noble Viscount was proposing was exactly what the noble Earl has answered. The noble Viscount apparently desires that these people should have a similar right of appeal—to see whether the payments are just—to this tribunal which Lord 751 Cranworth says is not worth having at all.

§ LORD HARLECH
One does not want to say anything that will prejudice the Committee. The point as to whether anyone should or should not have a right to go before this Reference Committee is not one on which I should like to express an opinion. The broad case, if I may speak in a personal capacity, seems to me perfectly clear. If the ordinary bread consumed by the ordinary working classes of this country is to be made from flour which has to bear the whole weight of quota payments, these expensive fancy foods like "Bemax" which costs half-a-crown for half-a-pound—

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
I understand the price is 2S. 6d. per lb., and in the case of hospitals, which get it by the cwt., it is 8d. per lb.

§ LORD HARLECH
That is a very much more expensive type of food than ordinary bread. If the ordinary consumer of bread has got to find the whole of these millions to make up the deficiency between the price which the British farmer gets and the standard price, which is now 45s.—if all these other things which represent fairly profitable undertakings are to be exempt from quota payments, it means more and more on bread and less and less on these fancy substances, whose manufacturers have money to advertise and push their wares, which you may say in some cases represent definitely luxury articles. I agree that once we begin to differentiate between these things it is extraordinarily difficult. Some may make out a case that the amount of flour in their products is so insignificant that to make quota payments is hardly justifiable.
It does seem to me that, broadly speaking, the intention of Parliament is that all flour used for human consumption, whatever it is manufactured into—whether cake, bread, biscuits, or the like—shall make quota payments, and that flour destined for livestock, poultry and cattle alone shall not be liable to quota payments. That is the broad intention of Parliament in the Wheat Act. This complicated differentiation between different classes of wheaten products made from flour with exemption and counter 752 exemption has got to be gone into, but, broadly speaking, the intention of Parliament is these products should all pay on their flour content.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
My noble friend Lord Feversham said biscuits might be brought in, but I cannot see how he can reconcile that with the statement of the Minister.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
If my noble friend's Amendment were carried and the door were opened, or rather half-shut, to certain of these manufacturers, it is possible that the biscuit manufacturers would come in; but there is no question of biscuit manufacturers being considered by the Reference Committee if the noble Viscount's Amendment is not accepted.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
So intricate, as my noble friend has said, is his answer that I should like to study it in black and white between now and Report, and perhaps bring the matter up again if thought advisable. In the meantime I ask permission to withdraw.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 11 agreed to.

§ Clause 12 agreed to.

§ 5.57 p.m.

§ Clause 13:

§ Repayments and allowances in the case of exported goods.

§ (4) The amount of an allowance to be made under such a scheme shall be the same as the amount of the quota payments which would accrue due on a delivery or importation, on the day on which the goods were exported or shipped, of materials equal in quantity and similar in character to such materials having a wheaten content as are shown to the satisfaction of the Commission to be included in the goods exported or shipped, or to have been used in the production thereof.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the same as" and insert "an amount calculated, in such manner as may be therein provided, by reference to, and not exceeding." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to guard against overpayment by the Wheat Commission. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 19, line 26, leave out ("the same as") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

753

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 14 to 17 agreed to.

§ Clause 18:

§ Provisions as to samples and analyses.

§ (2) For the purpose of the proof in any legal proceedings pursuant to the Wheat Acts of any fact relating to the taking of a sample under the said Section eleven or under the enactments relating to customs, being such a fact as is authorised by by-laws to be dealt with in a certificate signed for the purposes of this subsection,…

§ (3) For the purpose of the proof in any such proceedings as aforesaid of the result of an examination or analysis made by the Government Chemist, or by a person acting under his directions, of any such sample as aforesaid, and, in the case of an examination or analysis that is required by by-laws to be made in a prescribed manner, of the fact that it was so made, production of a certificate stating the result thereof and, in the case aforesaid, that fact, being a certificate in such form as may be prescribed by by-laws and purporting to be given by the Government Chemist, shall be sufficient evidence…

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "customs," to insert "or to the disposal of a sample so taken." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the certificate for sample analysis. The Amendment is designed to enable the certificate to deal not only with the mere physical taking of the sample, but with such questions as the packing of the sample in an airtight container and also its analysis within a specified time. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 38, after ("customs") insert ("or to the disposal of a sample sc taken").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "and, in the case of an examination or analysis that is required by by-laws to be made in a prescribed manner, of the fact that it was so made" and insert "or of the proof in any such proceedings of any fact relating to such an examination or analysis, being such a fact as is authorised by bylaws to be dealt with in a certificate given for the purposes of this subsection." The noble Earl said: This is a machinery Amendment which, again, is designed to enable the certificate to deal not only 754 with the results of an examination or analysis, but also with any facts relating to the examination which is authorised by the by-laws of the Wheat Commission. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 26, line 15, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("production") in line 18, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The last Amendment to the clause is drafting.

§ Amendment moved— Page 26, line 19, leave out ("and, in the case aforesaid, that fact") and insert ("or stating that fact, as the case may be").(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 19 [Provisions for securing payment of quota payments payable by importers]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The Amendments down in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 28, line 11, leave out ("payable") and insert ("accruing due")

§ Page 28, line 19, leave out ("are payable") and insert ("accrue due")

§ Page 29, line 8, at end insert: ("(7) References in this section to a deposit of a particular amount shall be construed as including references to a deposit of an amount greater than that amount.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 20 to 27 agreed to.

§ Clause 28 [Minor Amendments]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM
The Amendment in my name to this clause is also drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 33, line 15, at end insert ("or").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 29 agreed to.

§ Clause 30:

§ Interpretation.

§ 30.—(1) In the Wheat Acts, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:— 755 Milled wheaten substance" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) of Section four of this Act;

§ (2) For the purposes of this Act a milled wheaten substance produced in the United Kingdom, and chargeable food, shall be deemed to be delivered— (c) as regards a milled wheaten substance, on its being subjected by the miller by whom it was produced to some process or operation other than milling; or

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), at the end of the definition of "milled wheaten substance," to insert "and includes any substance falling within the definition contained in that subsection notwithstanding that it is produced in the course of a continuous process and is subjected to some further operation immediately on its coming into being." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment to remove any doubt as to the meaning of the word "produced." I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 34, line 26, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), to leave out "by the miller by whom it was produced" and insert "without having been previously delivered." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to prevent a possible evasion of quota payments. It is purely machinery.

§ Amendment moved— Page 35, line 21, leave out ("by the miller by whom it was produced") and insert ("without having been previously delivered").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) In this Act references to a substance or food produced by the application of a particular process or operation shall be construed as including references to a substance or food which is the result of the application of two or more processes or operations if the last of them was that particular process or operation, and references to a substance or food produced by a particular person, or produced in the United Kingdom, shall be construed as including references to a substance or food which is the result of the application of two or more processes or operations if the last of them was applied by that person, or was applied in the United Kingdom, as the case may be. 756 The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 26, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 31:

§ Commencement.

§ 31.—(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into operation on the passing thereof, that is to say, Sections one to three, Section thirteen, Section sixteen, subsection (2) of Section seventeen, Sections twenty-one to twenty-eight, Section thirty so far as requisite for the interpretation of any of the enactments aforesaid, this section, Section thirty-two, the First Schedule, and Section twenty-nine and the Second Schedule so far as regards the provisions thereof that are therein expressed to be consequential on any of the enactments aforesaid.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved in subsection (1) to leave out "subsection (2) of Section seventeen." The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendment are designed to make it clear that as soon as the Bill becomes law the Wheat Commission can make by-laws to deal with the provisions of the Act which do not come into operation until the beginning of next August, but such by-laws will not become operative until the first day of that month. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 36, line 40, leave out ("subsection (2) of Section seventeen").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) Any power to make by-laws conferred by this Act may be exercised at any time after the passing of this Act, but by-laws made for giving effect to any provision of this Act which does not come into operation before the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, shall not come into operation before that date. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting the operation in relation to this Act of the Interpretation Act, 1889. The noble Earl said: I have explained the effect of this Amendment in moving the previous one. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 37, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

§ Remaining clause agreed to.

§ Schedules agreed to.