HL Deb 25 July 1944 vol 132 cc1084-90

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Amendment of s. 20 of principal Act.

1.—(1) The power of making Milk and Dairies Regulations under Section twenty of the principal Act shall, instead of being exercised by the Minister of Health, be exercised jointly by that Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

(2) Regulations made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the said Section twenty for the registration of dairies, and of persons carrying on or proposing to carry on the trade of dairymen, shall provide— (b) for the refusal of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion, having regard to conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with and the registration should be refused, and for the cancellation of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion the regulations are not being complied with and the registration should be cancelled.

(3) Any regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection shall— (c) provide for the reference of any such objection to a tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations;

LORD TEVIOT moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after "and," where that word last occurs, to insert "therefore that." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, after ("and") insert ("therefore that.")—(Lord Teviot.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK)

The clause as it stands enables the Minister to exercise his discretion in special circumstances and to refrain from cancelling registration, not-withstanding that in his opinion the regulations have not been complied with. The suggestion underlying the Amendment appears to be that should this Amendment be accepted, the Minister would be in the position of having automatically to cancel the registration. As that is not intended, I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

LORD TEVIOT

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEVIOT moved in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to substitute "an independent" for "a." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I wish in a few words to make an explanation and to ask my noble friend one or two questions. I have studied this question very considerably and I cannot see why an independent tribunal should be be objected to. I have read the debate in the other place and while I find really no reason for objecting to an independent tribunal I do find many very cogent reasons why the tribunal should be independent. I notice that my right honourable friend the Solicitor-General seemed to be of the opinion that the tribunal should be an expert one. I cannot see why it should not be an expert tribunal and also at the same time an independent tribunal. My information is that in the past when these cases were tried it was distinctly laid down that nobody interested in the Ministry of Agriculture or in the particular farm could adjudicate upon them in court, and I ask my noble friend, where is the necessity for the alteration in that custom? There are many persons throughout the country with a great deal of practical experience extending over many years who could be found to become members of this tribunal. In fact, I should think that their practical experience, which is just what is wanted in this matter, must be far greater than that of any member of the Ministry. Without any difficulty I can think of two or three men who would most admirably fill the position of members of the tribunal and who would be completely independent.

Let me explain why I regard this matter with considerable anxiety. It is most important, I am sure your Lordships will agree, that the person concerned shall be satisfied that his or her case has had a really fair deal, because it may mean the whole livelihood of the individual concerned. As an illustration, suppose there was a private Bill before your Lordships' Committee upstairs: it would be most improper if one of your Lordships who happened to be interested in the controversy should sit on that Committee. I feel absolutely certain that no member of your Lordships' House would do so. That seems to me very analogous to what is suggested is going to take place with regard to this tribunal. I cannot believe that your Lordships or the country will want a tribunal which will be undoubtedly weighted on the side of the Minister by having one of his officers sitting upon it. It seems to me that it puts that officer in an impossible position. He has to bear in mind all the evidence, which I take it he would have before him, and at the same time try to eliminate his own knowledge when thinking of the position of the person who is bringing the case before the tribunal. Again I cannot believe that the Minister himself, whoever he may be in the future, can really want this. Surely he must wish to be advised by a tribunal which brings to him a report that cannot possibly be influenced by his own Ministry which has to implement the regulations.

If any of us want advice on a subject, do not we take very good care that we go to a person who will be completely unprejudiced and quite independent? I am not suggesting for a moment that a sense of fairness will not actuate the Minister or members of the tribunal no matter how it is composed, but I am anxious about those people who are going to have their cases tried and the great necessity there is that they should be absolutely satisfied. I am hoping that the Minister himself will come to the conclusion, after further consideration, that everyone will be far happier with my Amendment in the Bill. The Amendment does not rule out anybody. It just desires that the tribunal should be composed of fair-minded Britishers and that the custom shall be continued, which I understand has been observed in the past, that tribunals of this nature shall be independent and that great care shall be taken that they be both independent and impartial.

The question of clean milk is, I know, all-important and no one is keener on that than I am, but I cannot understand why the word "independent" should jeopardize in any way the question of clean milk. The question at issue seems to me a quite simple one. It is this: Have or have not the regulations been complied with, or will they quite certainly not be complied with? There is really no difficulty about this at all. What I want, and what I feel sure my right honourable friend the Minister must want, is that there shall be no possible risk of bias or prejudice in this matter. With the best will in the world I am of the distinct opinion that unless this Amendment is made there will be grave danger of injustice and dissatisfaction. I hope my noble friend who is to reply will tell us why an independent tribunal is not desired, and why it should be considered that if a tribunal is independent it will not be competent. Undoubtedly there have been many tribunals which have been both. The Minister, whoever he may be, will be adequately protected because no matter what report he receives he will undoubtedly consult with the high officers in his Department. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, leave out ("a") and insert ("an independent").—(Lord Teviot.)

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

The Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend is, of course, the same Amendment that was debated in another plane. Under the Bill it is for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to register dairies, farms and dairy-farmers and Clause 1 (2) (b) deals with the refusal and cancellation of registration. Clause 1 (3) provides for an appeal by a farmer to a tribunal when the Minister has given notice of his intention to refuse or cancel a registration. This tribunal, in accordance with a suggestion made by the Solicitor-General in another place, is restricted to dealing with facts, that is to say, whether the regulation can be or is being carried out. The further question whether the regulation is being or not being complied with, and whether therefore there should be cancellation, remains one for the decision of the Minister. The Solicitor-General said in another place—and this without challenge—that this approach to the problem, that is the separation of the sphere of facts and the determination of facts from that of the operation of this policy by the Minister, had been unanimously accepted by the House. The function of the tribunal would be to examine the facts in relation to the technical question whether or not the conditions existing are fit for the production of milk and, if they are not, whether they can be so made.

If I may try in my own way to express to your Lordships' House what I think will happen, it is this: When the farmer—who has been told in the first case that he may not produce milk, and in the second case that having already been producing milk he may not continue to produce milk—makes an appeal to the tribunal, that tribunal will not be a body of people sitting round a table who will call upon the farmer to produce his witnesses and then discuss among themselves whether or not a case is actually being made out. What they will in fact do is to visit the farm in question and make an inspection of it and consider whether or not the place is fit for the production of milk. If milk has already been produced on that farm and the farmer has been told that the conditions are not being complied with, then the tribunal will consider whether or not it is possible for that farmer to comply with the conditions, in fact, whether or not he has been guilty of not carrying out the regulations. It is for that reason absolutely imperative to my mind that experts who themselves know what is required on a farm should be allowed to carry out the inspection. If I understood him aright, my noble friend when moving his Amendment said that if we accepted it and the word "independent" was inserted in the Bill it would rule nobody out from sitting on the tribunal. But one of the reasons why we cannot accept the word "independ- ent" is that it may be that somebody we want to call in, somebody who really knows his job, might not be independent. Therefore if the word "independent" is inserted certain people would be automatically ruled out. The Minister and the Solicitor-General both gave explicit assurances in another place that they would give very careful consideration to the constitution of this tribunal. The constitution of it will be part of the regulations when they are laid down by the Minister, and before those regulations come into force they have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, so that in your Lordships' House and in another place there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss them. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will accept my explanation and will not press his Amendment.

LORD TEVIOT

I would like to refer to one or two remarks that fell from my noble friend. As regards visits to farms, surely they are more likely to bring out the facts if the individuals making the visits are practical farmers themselves. I should very much doubt whether any officials in the Ministry would have the very intimate and technical knowledge possessed by practical farmers. I do not wish that one of the Ministry's own officials should be on the tribunal because I have a feeling that that might lead to dissatisfaction on the part of a person whose livelihood might be taken away. If it were felt that the question was being brought forward under the regulations which are implemented by the Ministry, and that the Ministry was represented on the tribunal that was trying this case, I am quite certain that most men or women would say: "Well, I don't like this at all." I said purposely that I did not rule out anyone. That definitely means anyone who is independent and can be so regarded. I am loth not to agree to the appeal which the noble Duke has made in his very adequate reply, especially in view of the fact that so far as I can see no one is going to speak in favour of my Amendment. I have registered my opinion, and I think that under the circumstances it would be very unwise for me to occupy the time of your Lordships in dividing the Committee, as the Amendment would not get very far. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Amendment of s. 21 of principal Act.

(3) Regulations made under paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1) shall provide, as respects any special designation of raw milk, for the granting by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, instead of by the Minister of Health or county councils or local authorities, of licences to producers of raw milk authorizing the use of that special designation.

LORD TEVIOT moved, in subsection (3), after "local," to insert "sanitary." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe, I beg to move this Amendment which stands in his name.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 38 after ("local") insert ("sanitary").—(Lord Teviot.)

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

If this Amendment were accepted it would mean having to amend the principal Act. It is merely copying from that, if I may say so. Exactly the same consideration applies to the two later Amendments which are on the paper in the name of Lord Bledisloe, and I think that my noble friend only put them down as drafting Amendments. They really are not necessary and I hope that they will not be pressed.

LORD TEVIOT

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.