Lords Sitting of 28 April 1949

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The VISCOUNT SIMON on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
  3.5 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
  Agisters to have powers of special constables.
  " . Agisters employed by the verderers shall be granted the powers of special constables within the perambulation of the Forest:
  Provided that the agisters to whom these powers are granted shall first be approved by the Chief Constable of the County of Southampton."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some discussion upon this point in this House during the Committee stage of the Bill. It is a fact that in the New Forest the foresters—that is to say, the employees of the Forestry Commission—are automatically sworn in as special constables. As I understand it, they are sworn in annually before a local petty sessional court, and when so sworn they have all the powers of a special constable.
  I am fortified in moving this Amendment by what was said in the Report to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a party. I hope that members of the Government will pay some attention to the views of one of their number. The Report, at page 22, under the heading "Agisters," says:
  "The Keepers under the Forestry Commission are all enrolled as Special Constables. We think it most desirable that the Agisters employed by the Verderers should be given the same status. Without such powers they lack the authority to prevent misbehaviour on the part of the general public and to exercise due vigilance in the case of unlawful interference with the Commoners' animals or in the rarer but not unknown event of cattle stealing. They are more mobile than the Keepers and the two staffs could be of greater assistance to one another. The Police have no power to enforce the By-laws within the bounds of the Forest, and a larger force is needed than the Keepers alone can provide.
  118
  The need will be more obvious when, as we expect, there will be more animals on the Forest than at present, and it will not suffice to employ more Agisters unless they are given powers to carry out their duties in a proper manner."
  That is the recommendation of this authoritative Committee who have given us the Report on the New Forest, and on whose Report largely the present Bill is based.
  Your Lordships will note that in my Amendment I am merely carrying out their suggestion, but with an essential proviso, which I think is only right, making my proposal even more modest than the excellent one to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, set his hand. I include in my Amendment the proviso that in every case they should be personally approved also by the Chief Constable of the county of Southampton, in whose jurisdiction as a Chief Constable the New Forest lies. This is a simple, straightforward Amendment, and I do not see that any harm can be done to anybody by having this enabling power to allow these agisters to be made special constables. The only people who would be against it, one would think, would be possible miscreants in the New Forest, who may find some satisfaction in driving off somebody's pony without so much chance of being detained or arrested in the act. Nothing would induce me to put the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, into that category of people and, therefore, I hope he will see fit to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I would like to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Llewellin has said. This is a matter which intimately concerns those engaged with their cattle in the Forest, and so forth. The whole object of the Amendment is to ensure that misdemeanours shall not be committed in regard to the occupation of the Forest by these cattle and animals in a way which will destroy part of the hoped-for improvement in the number of cattle to be placed in the Forest. It is perfectly clear to anybody who knows the Forest, or to anybody like those responsible for the Report, that more special constables in this area are highly desirable, both in the interests of

  119
  the adequate protection of the Forest and the protection of the property of the Commoners and others in it. Therefore they earnestly hope that the representations from those with a real intimate knowledge of the Forest, will be accepted, and that a number of special constables will be appointed, in the way indicated by my noble friend. Speaking not only for myself but for a great many others directly concerned with the Forest, I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, during the earlier stages of this Bill we had considerable discussion on the question of whether the agisters of the New Forest should be enrolled as special constables. On the Committee stage of the Bill, I undertook to look very carefully into this matter, and to consult with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, about it. Together we have looked into this, and although there are many arguments on the side of the noble Lord, I think there are very good reasons why we should resist this particular Amendment.
  The first thing to bear in mind is the responsibility of the agisters compared with the responsibility of the keepers of the Forestry Commission. It is true to say that the agisters have authority only in regard to animals, and in fact if we look at the by-laws under Section 25 of the New Forest Act, 1877, the verderers are empowered to make by-laws only in regard to specific matters. First, there is the prevention of the spread of contagious or infectious disease in the Forest by excluding or removing from the Forest any animal infected with, or suspected of being infected with, an infectious or contagious disease. The second provision relates to the time, opportunity, and otherwise under which stallions, bulls and other male entire animals are to be allowed to roam at large in the Forest. Thirdly, they can enforce the removal from the Forest of cattle and animals belonging to persons not being commoners in the Forest. Fourthly, they can regulate the rights of the common by the commoners.
  Your Lordships will see from those items that the entire responsibility of
  120
  these agisters is concerned with animals, and not at all with people or with the land. Under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1927, that responsibility is given to the Forestry Commissioners, who have their keepers who look after the New Forest. Therefore I think it could be argued, and argued reasonably, that as these agisters have authority only in regard to animals, there is no point in giving them extra powers as special constables which they would need to use only in regard to criminal offences. I think there is a common misconception outside your Lordships' House as to the duty of a policeman or special constable. I believe I am right in saying that an ordinary citizen who is neither a policeman nor a special constable has every right, and in fact the duty, to arrest any person committing a felony or a crime. The policeman, of course, has the power and the duty to arrest a person on suspicion that he might be committing a crime. As regards crime in the New Forest, that would be dealt with by the local police who have complete control in that matter. Another point is that even if the agisters were sworn in as special constables, they would not have power to prosecute under the Forestry by-laws.
  Considering all these factors I would suggest that, instead of actually swearing these men in as special constables, they should be given uniforms. If the verderers would subscribe enough money to provide uniforms the agisters would, I feel sure, acquire a certain additional responsibility, and moral force. If, for example, one were walking through a park, and an individual in ordinary dress were to come up and tell one to keep off the grass, one might resent it; whereas if a park keeper, having an official uniform, were to come up and say "You must not walk across the grass," or something of that sort, one would feel that the man was doing his duty, and would not be conscious of any resentment. If these agisters were to be in uniform they would, I think, have this sort of moral force.
  Apart from this, I do not see why the agisters should be given any such power such as that of arresting people. If someone tried to steal a New Forest pony or something of the kind, it would obviously be a matter for the local police. At the same time, we must look a little more deeply into the motives of the chief

  121
  constables, who are extremely reluctant—I think noble Lords will all bear me out in this to give extra powers to individuals over whom they do not have proper control. Although the chief constables would have to give powers to these agisters once they were enrolled as special constables, vet there would be no control by the chief constable over their activities. Moreover, under our law it is impossible to enrol a man as a special constable and give him powers exclusively in a particular area; when a man becomes a special constable he has general power wherever he may be. The powers he has are powers which we wish, so far as possible, to keep in the hands of the police and we do not wish to place any further restrictions on the liberties of the subject.
  In considering this matter, therefore, One would say that there is at first sight a good case for making these persons special constables; and the excellent Report of the Committee on the New Forest might, on the face of it, support that view. Yet I suggest to your Lordships that it would be an unwise step—and incidentally it would make little real difference to the position. In view of these considerations, I hope the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, perhaps may be allowed to say that my limited experience of forests abroad has led me to believe that powers of this kind are almost universally granted to all forest guards in successful forests. I suggest that other people's experience might perhaps be taken into account in this matter.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I did riot, of course, put forward this Amendment suggesting that an agister would have any more power over the animals of the New Forest if he wore a special constable's band round his arm! The matter seems to me to be quite simple. Here we have a large tract of land—not, I am glad to say, very much policed, for there is not a great deal of work for policemen to do—where it might be extremely helpful to the chief constable in the maintenance of law and order if he had a few further respectable citizens (I have no reason to suppose that these agisters are not respectable citizens) to help him in the enforcement of the law and the Forest by-laws by being enrolled,
  122
  as the foresters are, as special constables. The noble Earl said that the agisters might be more effective if they had uniforms, because that would suggest a greater authority than in fact they would possess. But I am informed that the agisters always have had uniforms, and that it was only in the difficult time of war that these uniforms were not replaced. The difficulty was one of coupons, and I believe that that was the only reason why the uniforms were not replaced.
  I am sorry that the noble Earl does not see at to accept this Amendment, especially as he said that at first sight one might think that the paragraph I read from the Report supported the view I have put forward. As a matter of fact I have read the paragraph two or three times, and every time I read it I felt more and more strongly that it supported my views. As far as I am concerned, therefore, the matter is not one of first-sight impressions. However, this is not a very great matter, and I do not think it is one that we should press to a Division. I would, however, suggest to the noble Earl that the Minister of Agriculture might ask the chief constables to consider that where there were suitable men amongst those living in the district, that those men might well be kept in mind when the chief constable is considering the making of special constables in that area. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider whether that could be done.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am very interested in what the noble Lord says. I think his suggestion is a very practical one, and it would not interfere with the substance of the Bill. I see no reason why the chief constables should not be consulted in the way that the noble Lord suggests, and certainly I will give him an assurance that I will discuss this matter with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. And although, of course, I cannot commit myself at the moment, I must say that I think that this excellent idea might go a long way to resolve the problems with which we are faced.
  There is another point, which I do not think has been referred to, and that is the question of the responsibility of the local authority for the actions of the special constables. That is always a difficult matter, just as it is in the case of

  123
  ordinary police officers. Suppose that an ordinary police officer acts in some way beyond his duties and causes injury to an individual—perhaps wrongful arrest, for example. The position in such a case, as I understand it, is that the ultimate legal sanction (though I speak with great diffidence in the presence of so many legal minds) is an action by the person against that police officer; and there is, of course, the sanction against the police officer that he can be dismissed by the chief constable. But I think I am right in saying that the chief constable himself could not be proceeded against in any way for the action of his subordinate. That is one particular aspect of our English law as an institution.
  Another reason why it might be wise not to make these agisters into special constables is the fact that, if they did act in some way which exceeded their duties and caused damage, it would be an extremely awkward matter to decide who should pay for that. Presumably, an action would be brought against them by the damaged party. Would the verderers be prepared to back financially any costs of this action? From what one has read in the Report, I think it would be doubtful whether the verderers would be willing to commit themselves to any such responsibility. I mention that only as a further aspect to be considered, and I put it forward as a further argument against making these agisters special constables. I gratefully recognise the way the noble Lord has gone to meet us on the particular point. I will certainly consider carefully his suggestion, and I will have a discussion on it with my right honourable friend.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I add this to what has been said by my noble friend? I have acted as a special constable on a large number of occasions. I have had opportunities for discussing whether there were any risks attaching to my so acting. Although I have no complaint to make about the way in which the law has been stated, I think I may say with complete confidence that, in the first place, only in the very rarest cases are constables accused of going beyond their duty. It is my impression that a special constable, appointed in the way that is suggested to keep order in the New Forest, would
  124
  be even less likely to do anything which would expose him to any legal risk. I would invite the noble Earl not to pay very great attention to a risk which, in my opinion, is so remote as to be almost non-existent.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for saying that he will consult with his right honourable friend the Minister, and will probably be able to make this suggestion to the Chief Constable of Southampton. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.33 p.m.
  Clause 19 [Exchanges of Land in the Forest]:
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "(3) A highway authority shall be empowered to construct grids or other similar structures to prevent uncontrolled ingress or egress of animals to or from the Forest along the roads leading into or out of the Forest:
  Provided that where such a grid or other similar structure is made across a road, alternative access shall be made available by the provision of a gate or gates alongside the said road."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, most of you are familiar with the grids which people put across their drives when they cross an open field. The cattle do not like to see a pit two or three feet deep under the bars on which they put their feet, and apparently such grids are effective in keeping cattle from straying out of a particular field. Eventually, I believe that we shall want to do that in the case of the New Forest.
  We march on in days of agricultural research and good agriculture, and I hope that some day we may be able to see an area like the New Forest become a tuberculin-tested area for cattle. If ever that comes about, we shall have to have some means of preventing those beasts getting out of the Forest. But, for the present, what one finds, as many noble Lords probably know, is that cattle stray out of the Forest along the roads. I myself have met them there at night. That is most undesirable, first from the point of view of road accidents, and secondly, from the point of view of the commoners themselves, because sometimes these cattle are found straying outside, are taken off

  125
  the roads by the police or some other authority and then have to be "bailed out" before the commoner can have his beasts back. So, from all points of view, it would be a very good thing if we could have these grids across the roads in and out of the New Forest.
  However, from talks that I have been able to have with the noble Earl opposite, I understand that much of what the ordinary person like myself thinks is part of the New Forest is really part of a common attaching to it and not part of the Forest itself. Therefore there would be great difficulty in knowing exactly where to put these grids, because the local inhabitants want their cattle to be on the common, as well as within the perambulation of the New Forest proper. If that be so, as I think it is, then it may be that I am a little premature with my Amendment, and that what I seek cannot be done in a Bill which deals exclusively with the New Forest. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell me (a) whether that is the case, and (b) whether there is any likelihood of the new measure, which the Ministry of Transport say they are going to introduce—indeed, which I think they must introduce, because many authorities have already put grids across roads, whether with powers or not one does not know—appearing shortly. If there is, then perhaps that will be the appropriate place to deal with a matter of this kind, not only for the New Forest but for the country as a whole. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 21, at end insert said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, again I would like to pay a tribute to the reasonable way in which the noble Lord opposite has moved this Amendment. As he said, there are two objections to what is fundamentally an excellent idea. The first objection is that there is common land all round parts of the New Forest and as it is impossible, without a fundamental alteration in our legislation, to enclose common land, it would in practice be impossible to enclose or fence those parts of the New Forest. Therefore, as the noble Lord has suggested, I think it would be better to postpone this excellent idea until the Ministry of Transport introduce their Bill which, as we know, will give general
  126
  powers for grids to be placed on roads. When that measure comes along, we can consider this matter again and see whether anything can be done, in regard to the New Forest, to make it an enclosed area. I am glad that the noble Lord recognises the merit of this suggestion, and I should be grateful if he would withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, in view of the talks that we have had, I do not think that my Amendment is practicable at this stay. Therefore, I de not press it and beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS
  3.40 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, and in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers which has just been concluded. Your Lordships will already have seen the announcement in to-day's newspapers. It will, of course, be realised that it was necessary to make the results of the Conference known in this way in order to facilitate simultaneous announcements in all the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, I think this House would wish to hear the terms of this Statement so that a decision which will, I feel sure, be regarded as a historic one in the evolution of the Commonwealth may with the least possible delay take its place in the records of the proceedings of the House.
  During the past week the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs have met in London to exchange views upon the important constitutional issues arising from India's decision to adopt a republican form of Constitution and her desire to continue her membership of the Commonwealth. The discussions have been concerned with the effects of such a development upon the existing structure of the Commonwealth and the constitutional relations between its

  127
  members. They have been conducted in an atmosphere of good will and mutual understanding, and have had as their historical background the traditional capacity of the Commonwealth to strengthen its unity of purpose, while adapting its organisation and procedures to changing circumstances.
  After full discussion, the representatives of the Governments of all the Commonwealth countries have agreed that the conclusions reached should be placed on record in the following declaration:
  "The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose countries are united as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and owe a common allegiance to the Crown, which is also the symbol of their free association, have considered the impending constitutional changes in India.
  "The Government of India have informed the other Governments of the Commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that under the new Constitution which is about to be adopted India shall become a sovereign independent republic. The Government of India have however declared and affirmed India's desire to continue her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.
  "The Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth, the basis of whose membership of the Commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognise India's continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration.
  "Accordingly the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare that they remain united as free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress."
  128
  These constitutional questions have been the sole subject of discussion at the full meetings of the Prime Ministers.
  That, my Lords, is the Statement which I have to make. I hope your Lordships will allow me to suggest that any full discussion of this matter, if it is the wish of the House that this should take place, should be deferred until a later occasion. I say this having regard particularly to the fact that the leaders of delegations from the other countries of the Commonwealth are naturally not yet in a position to report personally to their own Governments and Parliaments.
  3.46 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Swinton is unavoidably absent to-day and he has asked me to say a few words from this Bench in reference to the momentous Statement which has just been read. We shall all agree, I think and hope, that full discussion should be deferred. No private Member of this House—indeed, no Member of the other House except members of the Government—was informed of the terms of this announcement until it appeared in this morning's newspapers. It would therefore be quite out of keeping with the grave importance of the occasion to attempt now to formulate impromptu questions or anything of that kind. As we all realise, the issues involved are far too vast for that mode of treatment, and I feel that the only right course now is to take time to consider dispassionately and sympathetically the implications. That the conclusions just announced may lead to the reality of unity and co-operation must be the deep desire of us all.
  There are just two brief observations which I would venture to make, which will not transgress this rule of prudence, for I believe they will be universally approved. First, we must note and keep in the front of our minds the great fact that this historic declaration represents agreement. How much that means may be measured by asking ourselves what our anxieties would have been if, after this important Conference, the announcement to-day had been of breakdown and of disagreement. In the power of adjustment to developing circumstances, and in the ability to use that power wisely, lies the secret of the continued life of many

  129
  institutions, most of all, perhaps, of this association of sister-nations.
  My only other observation, if I may be permitted briefly to make it, has to do with the Crown. All who have studied and sought to promote the development of the Commonwealth realise that the value of the contribution made by the almost mystical position of the Crown depends largely on this: that although in every one of the countries concerned there are contending political parties and views fiercely presented and entertained, the Crown stands above all that, and in discharging its constant and silent service is always an emblem of unity and never the cause of dispute. It would indeed be deplorable, it would be tragic, if the position of the Sovereign, who serves all his people so faithfully, were ever to become a matter of controversy. This agreement, as; we have just heard, whatever may be its outcome, avoids that, and we can all, without hesitation and at once, rejoice that this should be so.
  What will emerge is for the future. Many important questions, constitutional and legislative, may suggest themselves, about the Statute of Westminster, for example, and many other matters, but I think we should be wise if, for to-day, we contented ourselves with the hope that the agreement now reached will lead to a firm reality by which, as the Statement just made by the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Admiralty ends by declaring, there may be "free co-operation in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress."
  3.52 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, viewed from any angle, the Statement which we have heard to-day records a most pregnant and far-reaching decision. Manifestly, it would be impolitic that we should, at this stage, attempt to express any concluded, before we have had any opportunity of formulating any considered, opinion upon the whole field concerned. Yet we must take note with deep and confident satisfaction that this settlement was arrived at by the common accord of all those present at the Conference, drawn, as they were, from many nations and from various Parties. That concord so promptly put into effect should have been a feature of this Conference, must give to us all a sense not only of an immense gain for the present, but of a potent promise for the future. I
  130
  would add no more than this: a fervent hope that this settlement may always promote the happiness and prosperity of the people of India.
  3.54 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I desire to ask my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty a question on procedure. Before doing so, however, I would like to say something that has not fallen from the lips of either of the two noble Lords who have so eloquently expressed the views of their Parties. I believe that, whatever the final outcome may be, the general public here, and particularly our friends abroad—in this connection I refer especially to the United States—will feel great gratitude to His Majesty's Government for dealing with a most delicate and pregnant situation in the way in which they have done. My question on procedure is this. If my noble friend is in a position to deal with this matter, can he tell the House whether any Bill or Instrument will be required to be placed before Parliament in connection with this settlement?
  3.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, with your leave, I would like, in a very few words, to say how much I am sure His Majesty's Government will appreciate the wise approach to this declaration which has been made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. Lord Simon has great knowledge of the vast and important problem to which he has referred, for he was Chairman of a very important Commission which inquired into these problems some time ago, a Commission of which the Prime Minister was himself one of the members. It must, I feel sure, give the noble and learned Viscount some satisfaction to know that the Prime Minister, who sat upon the Commission with him, has been the instrument for accomplishing a great deal towards bringing about this settlement. The weighty words of the noble and learned Viscount concerning the Crown should be broadcast throughout this country and throughout the Commonwealth, and I am sure they would be received with very ready acceptance. They were timely, and they will be greatly appreciated. May I also refer to the very appropriate acceptance which was expressed by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading? "Reading" is a name which has been, and will long

  131
  be, revered in India by reason of the distinguished service which was rendered by the father of the present noble Marquess. Indeed, it is very fitting that the acceptance of this Declaration by the two Opposition Parties in this House should be voiced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading.
  With regard to the question which was put to me by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, may I say that he has raised a very important point? It is a matter which has not been lost sight of by His Majesty's Government, and at the present time consideration is being given to the question whether it will be necessary for any statutory changes to be made. I have no doubt that if such changes are necessary, an announcement will be made concerning them. I will conclude by thanking your Lordships, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, for your acceptance of this Declaration.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL
  3.58 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, yesterday we had an exceedingly interesting debate on the subject of horticulture and the marketing of fruit and vegetables. At the end of that debate, I think it was agreed on most sides of the House, if not on all sides, that a lot could be done to solve the problem facing that industry by greater co-operation within the industry. I also suggested to noble Lords that one of the most useful steps which His Majesty's Government were taking to give assistance was by means of the Agricultural Marketing Acts. Very appropriately, this Agricultural Marketing Bill comes before your Lordships for consideration this afternoon. The original Acts, of course, provide for schemes by which producers can combine together to regulate their marketing and to help the individual members concerned in the schemes.
  Marketing and distribution are important subjects. The Government set up a Committee, under the Chairmanship
  132
  of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to examine these questions, and that Committee produced an extremely useful and weighty Report. Their recommendations and the implications of those recommendations, were so far-reaching that the Report is still under consideration. It may well be that some of your Lordships may feel that action has been too long delayed, but when we consider how our lives may be affected by these decisions, we may conclude that it is far better to delay a final judgment and not to take quick decisions and possibly fall into error. While the Report is still being considered, it is obvious that the industry must carry on, and that we must do everything we can to produce as much food as possible. Therefore it was thought wise to introduce this Bill to help marketing schemes to be revived and new schemes to be brought into operation. In case of any misunderstanding on this subject, I should like to make it clear to your Lordships that this Bill in no way prejudices final decisions on the Lucas Report.
  The Agricultural Marketing Acts marked an important step in the history of agriculture. I should like to pay tribute to the father of agricultural marketing schemes, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who introduced the original Act in this House and who must contemplate with great satisfaction the results of, for instance, the Milk Marketing Board, which has had such successful results in our economy. We look to the revival of marketing schemes. Already a scheme for cucumbers and tomatoes is being considered; a further scheme for wool marketing is being prepared by the National Farmers' Union, and no doubt other schemes will come forward. The purpose of the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon is to tidy up the Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933, to bring them up to date and make them suitable for present-day conditions, which are considerably different from those of pre-war years.
  When Parliament gives wide powers, it insists on proper safeguards against the abuse of those powers. Under the Marketing Acts considerable powers were given to the marketing boards and I must say that in the past these boards have used their powers extremely wisely. I make no criticism. But the Government must always be alive to the possibility,

  133
  under changed conditions, of these powers being used against the interests of the consumers. It is also important to remember that since the passing of the Agriculture Act of 1947, which guaranteed markets and prices for certain commodities, the consumer is doubly interested in agriculture, first as a consumer and secondly as a taxpayer who, under certain conditions, may be called on to pay the bill. In the measure now before your Lordships we strengthen the safeguards protecting the consumer, and at the same time take great care to prevent any tendency in the boards towards monopolistic or restrictive practices. There is, of course, the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act of 1948, but this could not apply to marketing boards which are set up by Statute. Therefore, we must have the definite safeguards proposed in the Bill.
  At the same time we also extend the powers of the boards. The Report of the Lucas Committee pointed out clearly that the boards could not only have a considerable effect on marketing but would also be extremely useful bodies for increasing productive efficiency, and in line with this we give further powers to the boards so that they can promote more orderly marketing and more efficient production. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the safeguards. Clause 1 lays down the number of members of the boards—not fewer than eight or more than twenty-four, unless the Minister thinks fit. The qualification is necessary in case some far-reaching scheme may require a larger board. For instance, the wool marketing scheme which is being considered may apply to Northern Ireland as well as to the whole of the British Isles, and in this case it might be necessary to extend the board. The clause also provides that the Minister shall nominate not fewer than two members or more than one-fifth of the Board.
  Clause 2 is more far-reaching. It enables the Minister to stop a board doing anything which he considers is not in the public interest. Your Lordships may think that this gives the Minister excessive powers of discretion, but you will find that these powers are curtailed by the safeguards which prevent the Minister from acting with, perhaps, excessive zeal or in any improper way. Subsection (2) limits the intervention of the Minister to questions in regard to restric-
  134
  tions on the purposes for which the product is used, to limiting quantity, to regulating price and to limiting classes of persons to whom or through whose agency the commodity may be sold. These are not the only safeguards. If the Minister thinks that an action of a board is contrary to the public interest, he has to notify the board, giving them twenty-eight days' notice, during which time they can lodge an objection and may demand that the matter should go to a committee of investigation. This is an independent committee with a chairman of legal qualifications—usually an eminent lawyer. Should the committee of investigation approve the Minister's view, the Minister may proceed with an Order under Clause 2. If they do not, then the Minister is unable to make the Order. This is the position, with the important exception of the commodities in the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act of 1947, which are the commodities for which we have accorded to producers guaranteed prices and assured markets.
  I do not wish to dwell on Clause 3, which reconciles the Bill to previous Acts. Clause 4 gives a further safeguard to the consumer—namely, that during the period in which a committee of investigation may be considering an intention of the Minister to act, the Minister may give temporary directions to the board. The reason is this. If we suppose that a board have an intention of putting up the price of something which the Minister thinks will be against the public interest the board may object to the Minister's directions and may demand that it should go to a committee of investigation. That committee might sit considering the matter for a considerable time; and during that time the public interest might be seriously affected and great loss or harm caused. It is proposed, therefore, to give the Minister power to give temporary directions for a limited period during which he can restrain the board from doing what they wish.
  I do not think there are many objections, but I might mention a particular one which was raised in another place—to the effect that some harm might be done to the producer if the Minister considered that some action of the board was harmful and on consideration by the committee of investigation opinion went against the Minister. It was thought

  135
  that some harm or loss might have been caused to the producer in the meantime. I think the answer is that it is surely in the interests of the board to give advance notice to the Minister of what they are going to do, so as to give adequate time for the matter to be considered and if necessary discussed. There would be no danger to the producers, and the interests of the consumers would be adequately safeguarded.
  Clauses 5 to 8 are clauses which arise from the recommendation of the Falmouth Committee, and deal with penalties for producers who break the rules. I would remind your Lordships that it requires a two-thirds vote of the producers before a board can be brought into existence; and if two-thirds of the producers vote for the board to cease functioning, then the whole scheme will be revoked. But while the scheme is in operation penalties can be imposed on any producers who break the rules of the board.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt the noble Earl? When he speaks of two-thirds of the producers, does he mean two-thirds of the producers of any particular commodity throughout the country, or two-thirds of the producers in any region or area?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As a rule it is throughout the country. As your Lordships know, a poll is taken of the registered producers to see whether two-thirds are in favour. As I say, these clauses deal with penalties, and with the disciplinary committee. It was thought better to have a small disciplinary committee to decide on these penalties, rather than the whole board, which is a somewhat cumbersome body for this purpose. The disciplinary committee would be under the chairmanship of an independent member with legal qualifications and experience.
  In Clause 9 we come to the opposite side of the picture. Under that clause we give wider powers to the boards. As I said in introduction, we not only want these boards to function in regard to marketing but we also want them to promote increased production. It was thought wise—the Report of the Lucas Committee supports us in this—to give the boards power to sell, make or hire to producers articles or commodities
  136
  which they may require, either for better marketing or better production. This is, of course, a big step, which no doubt your Lordships will want to consider carefully and in detail. We are anxious to encourage production. For instance, supposing that some new form of milk churn were invented which was far better than the present one, and that for some reason the commercial factories did not want to make it, then this clause will give a certain bargaining weapon to the appropriate board to say: "If you do not provide us with this more efficient milk churn we shall get it ourselves." And ultimately they will be able to manufacture the churn. In practice, of course, the board would not want to go into manufacturing. The suggestion in another place that they might wish to set up in competition to Ford's or Ferguson's, is, on the face of it, ridiculous. This is only a safeguard to enable them in certain circumstances to produce a much-needed article. What is more important—and what we think they will do—is that they should provide services to the producers. Of two services already provided by a board, one is grass drying, which, for various reasons, might not have been started by individual or private concerns. There will be marketing boards such as the Milk Marketing Board, who can perhaps get big plants and distribute their products to the producers.
  LORD CRANWORTH: May I ask the noble Earl whether this clause would enable a board to carry out experiments, involving money of course, on any new plant?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The actual wording allows them to "manufacture or make," which would include experiments. However, I will look into that point.
  The other development, which has already been undertaken by the Milk Marketing Board, is the operation of artificial insemination centres—that is obviously a function that has to be kept under very careful control, for it is something which will affect the whole of our livestock. These centres have been operated very successfully by the Milk Marketing Board. I do not want to go into details of all the clauses which, by and large, bring earlier Acts up to date, but I should like to mention Clause 12, which abolishes the Market Supply Com-

  137
  mittee. This Committee was set up under Section 3 of the 1933 Act, but in practice has not been used since 1939. The original object of this Committee was to review the circumstances affecting the supply of agricultural products, and to advise the Government generally on the agricultural situation and on the steps which might be taken. This Committee was set up long before the Ministry of Food was created. Now that we have the Ministry of Food, a large Department with the duty of looking after the national diet, of buying foods from abroad and planning ahead, with a staff of advisers of every kind, the Market Supply Committee is really unnecessary, and we propose to abolish it.
  Clause 19, which is the last important clause in the Bill, enables northern Ireland to be included. I would emphasise the fact that it can be included only with the consent of both Houses of Parliament in Northern Ireland. If they do consent, then a marketing scheme can apply in the whole of the British Isles, including northern Ireland. I apologise for taking so much time over this Bill, but I feel that it is a very valuable Bill indeed. In view of our agricultural expansion programme, and the real necessity to encourage the production of food as much as we can, I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a welcome and a speedy Second Reading. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  4.20 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Earl for the way in which he has placed this Bill before us. He did it with great clarity and thoroughness, albeit with brevity also. I should like briefly to welcome the Bill in the main, if only because it clears the decks to enable the farmers to go ahead with schemes which they have had in preparation for some time. I think it has been an agreed policy among all Parties in both Houses, and an agreed policy indeed among the farmers themselves for many years, that efficient marketing must go hand in hand with efficient production. The main purpose of this Bill, as I see it, is to strengthen the public safeguards against what some might feel to be monopoly powers enjoyed by the marketing boards. Whether we think all those safeguards are neces-
  138
  sary or not, they are, I believe, all to the good if public confidence is thereby increased. We should make it perfectly clear that it is more a matter of giving reassurance than a matter of supplying any need. Indeed, I think the Minister of Agriculture himself, during the Second Reading debate in another place, made it clear that the arrangement which had hitherto been in existence for protecting the public had, in fact, worked perfectly satisfactorily. The noble Earl, also made that point.
  There are, however, one or two exceptions we must make to the general attitude of benevolence and blessing, and I do not think I shall surprise the noble Earl when say that the first one applies to Clause 4. At the present moment, the position is that there is a consumers' committee. That committee can make complaints, and those complaints, having been made, are then referred to a committee of investigation. On receipt of the report, the Minister can either give orders to a board to rectify whatever is reported by the committee to be wrong or, indeed, in the ultimate resort he has the power to revoke the scheme. The Minister, therefore, is in an extremely strong position. Now under Clause 2, to which the noble Earl drew our attention, the Minister's position is strengthened to the extent that he no longer has to wait for a complaint; he can, on his own initiative, raise a point for submission to the committee of investigation. Having received the report, in this case also he may give orders that whatever he is complaining about shall be rectified, or again he has the power of revocation. But, as the noble Earl said, this particular strengthening of his position refers only to commodities which come under the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act—namely, commodities that are guaranteed. I think I am stating the position correctly.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In regard to guaranteed commodities, the Minister has full power and need not take action in accordance with any recommendation of the committee of investigation.
  EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Earl is quite right, and I accept that correction. Now we come to Clause 4, which is a very different matter. We might feel that Clause 2 afforded a considerable

  139
  strengthening of the Minister's position, but, taking the long view, perhaps we need not quarrel unduly with that. Clause 4, however, gives the Minister power to issue interim instructions to a board while the case is sub judice. Now that is a very different matter. Nor is there any qualification about the commodities coming under the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act. That means, therefore, that the Minister has power to make interim orders with regard to commodities for which there is no guaranteed price at all, and so may limit what may be a very necessary rise in price.
  There might be something to be said for that if, at a later stage, should the Minister be proved wrong by the committee of investigation, there was some right to make a claim for compensation. It might well be that not hundreds, but hundreds of thousands of pounds would be lost by the board because of a faulty instruction given to them by the Minister. I know, of course, that the implication is that Ministers in fact never give faulty instructions, and on the whole I think we have been fortunate in having responsible Ministers at the head of the Department. I believe it will be a very rare occasion when this power will be used, and an even rarer occasion when the Minister will be proved wrong. But that is not the point. The principle of the Minister taking to himself power to issue orders while a question is sub judice, and to give no right of appeal, no right of protection or no right of compensation to the board if later he should be proved to be wrong, is a principle which it is very hard to tolerate.
  We were discussing yesterday the problems of the horticultural industry. I suppose no section of the agricultural industry is affected by this clause more than horticulture. Price changes have frequently to be made. The noble Earl said that it is up to the boards to give the Minister plenty of warning. Sometimes it will be possible to give that warning, but there are occasions, as in the case of a crop failure, when adequate warning cannot be given, and severe losses might be caused. I submit to your Lordships that there is no case whatsoever for this. If the Minister could have produced one single instance of the powers of the boards being abused, one would
  140
  have felt it harder to offer opposition. But what are the Minister's comments on the present operation of the powers of the board? On the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, speaking with regard to the arrangements hitherto in force for protecting the public, he said:
  "These arrangements proved very satisfactory before the war. There was a strong Committee, with an eminent lawyer as chairman, which dealt, I believe fairly, with every complaint that lay before it. Fortunately, however, over the years there were very few complaints."
  The whole burden of the speech was, in fact, that the powers never had been abused. I should like to appeal to the noble Earl even now—though I know the matter has been thoroughly discussed—to give us some indication that he is at least prepared to consider, if not the total withdrawal of this clause, at any rate some considerable modification of it.
  I now turn briefly to other clauses. The noble Earl mentioned Clause 9, and I think we all welcome that extension of the powers of the Board. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, asked whether the Government would make it possible for a board to carry out experiments for improvements in technique and equipment. I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought the Bill did go some distance to give the boards complete powers—but no doubt the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether that is so. I notice that in the copy of the Bill that was introduced into another place, there was in Clause 10 a limitation on the powers of the board to lend money to producers. I am glad to see that that has gone; the board as a credit agency may frequently be a most suitable body.
  Now I come to my next complaint, and that is with regard to Clause 12, which concerns the abolition of the Market Supply Committee. The purpose of that Committee was to review the supply position and to make recommendations and give advice with regard both to quantities required for home production and to the regulation and control of imports. Now if that body were needed before the war—and it was: it was used quite frequently up to 1939—it is most certainly needed now—doubly so. The grounds for doing away with it are that it is not used. But why? Would not a great number of the difficulties we were discussing yesterday have been

  141
  avoided if there had been a fact-finding body sitting permanently, in a position to give objective advice to Ministers? I am quite sure they would. And it is a much better way of settling these questions for the Ministers to receive such advice than by the methods of departmental controversy of which we know only too well to-day.
  Incidentally, on this point of the Market Supply Committee and of the information that it was originally designed to give, could the noble Earl tell us what is going to be the position of the marketing boards with regard to themselves receiving information? They have to carry out a great deal of the planning of the business in the commodities for which they are responsible. We all recognise to-day that it is impossible for this country to work entirely by itself. To have a sound policy, it is essential to have information about foreign supplies and about any new decisions that are likely to be published in the near future by His Majesty's Government. Is there any machinery to be set up, or any intention to undertake to give to the boards prior information about future decisions of the Government on the supply position? I think that that is very necessary. We did not receive any actual pledge yesterday from the Government as to consultation with the National Farmers' Union with regard to import arrangements. Possibly sometimes it will be found more or at any rate equally important to have consultations with the board actually responsible for the regulation of marketing even than with the general growers' representatives, the National Farmers' Union. If the noble Earl could say a word about that, I should be extremely grateful.
  Having mentioned Clause 4 and Clause 12, I would say that the Bill is one which we generally approve. There may be two or three Amendments that we shall want to put before your Lordships, but those are really Committee points, and I do not propose to trouble the House with them at the present moment. The main point is that we can now wish the farmers Godspeed with their plans for the improvement of the growing, packing and marketing arrangements of their produce; and I would express the hope that no further legisla-
  142
  tion on this subject will be envisaged for some time, so that farmers can feel that they know where they stand and can go ahead on a firm foundation of legislation with which they are familiar. I do not say this by any means in a spirit of opposition to all the proposals in the Lucas Report. As a whole, while we may not like all that is in that Report, speaking for myself, at any rate, I think there are some points in it that might some time be useful. But would appeal to the Minister and to the noble Earl opposite to leave well alone for the moment and let the farmers get on with the job they have to do: a job which they have been anxious to tackle for a number of years.
  4.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I desire to give my support, for what it is worth, to this Bill. I have no doubt whatever about the justification for the Bill. I have a great Admiration for the work of the Milk Marketing Board, which I believe has done more than any other organisation to develop both the quantity and the quality of the milk of this country. To me that is a sufficient justification for this Bill. Of course, the main reason for the necessity for marketing boards in this country is the unfortunate lack of development in agricultural co-operation. Other countries have solved all these problems efficiently without all this Government intervention. I am afraid that in this country, so individualistic are we, at any rate in our rural economy, that these marketing boards are a necessity.
  For at least fifty years some of us have been drawing attention to the big spread between the producer, on the one hand, and the consumer, on the other, of agricultural products. Obviously, in the absence of efficient co-operation amongst the producers, something must be done—which, indeed, was the reason for the setting up of the Lucas Committee and of their Report—in the interest of the public, as well as of the producers, to reduce that spread so far as possible by the elimination of superfluous or unnecessary middleman interests.
  At the same time, I was a little shaken in the opening speech of the noble Earl when he told us that the Lucas Report was still under consideration, and that

  143
  this Bill in no way prejudices the final decision on that Report. I may say that I have noted with great admiration the astute ingenuity of the Lucas Report, but I do not know any Report on any agricultural topic that has fluttered the dovecotes of the agricultural community to such an extent as has the Lucas Report. If action is going to be taken upon the Report of the noble Lord's Committee, I hope that an intimation on the part of the Government will be given at the earliest possible moment, because this Bill, if translated into an Act of Parliament, with the possible implementation of the Lucas Report hanging like the Sword of Damocles over our heads, would evoke a certain amount of anxiety, if not of opposition.
  There is what I may call the sinister figure of the Minister behind the whole of this scheme, the whole of this policy. We are apt to be misled by the fact that in Mr. Tom Williams and in the noble Earl opposite we have two very sympathetic, efficient and charming personalities. After all, when this Bill is passed, we cannot look for all time to having Tom Williamses and Lord Huntingdons to represent the person referred to in this Bill as "the Minister" and I am a little anxious when it is left merely to "the Minister" to decide what is in the public interest. Under several clauses in this Bill, he can intervene in the operations of the boards that are to be set up under this Bill if, in his opinion, their activities are contrary to the public interest. We had a little illustration of what might happen in the discussion only yesterday. I myself ventured to refer to the planting of fruit.
  If I may say so, fruit is a long-term proposition, unlike cucumbers, tomatoes, or even wool. When you plant forest trees, or apple and pear trees, you do so with a view to their productivity over a period of something like twenty-five to thirty years ahead. If, in a spirit of impetuosity or ministerial anxiety, it is deemed to be in the public interest to take any step by importations of a commodity like fruit, to check the actual planting of fruit trees, I suggest that in the long run it will not be in the public interest. I do most earnestly hope that the Minister, in exercising his discretion under this Bill as to what is in the public interest, will take
  144
  the long view and will display the vision which is so essential in this connection.
  I refer particularly to the expression "quantity of the regulated product." The "quantity of the regulated product" is one of the matters with which these boards may deal, but in respect of which the Minister may interfere if he deems that those prescribed quantities are not in the public interest. I imagine that Clause 2 (b), is inserted to avoid a glutting of the general market, or a possible glut of any particular commodity in one area while there is a scarcity in another. In this connection I feel tempted to refer to the most remarkable agricultural co-operative organisation in the whole world, the Californian Fruit Growers' Association. The organisation governs the whole of the fruit supplied to every single urban community throughout the whole of the United States, and it does it so effectually as to ensure that there is never a glut of fruit in any part of America, and that every part of the country is supplied with a sufficiency of fruit on the one hand, and walnuts on the other.
  Whilst giving my own—I will not say enthusiastic, but shall I say cautious, support to this Bill, I desire to express the sincere hope that the very great powers which are exercisable by the Minister will be employed with all due caution and with vision. I want to ask just one question. In Clause 1 (3) who exactly are the persons who come within this category? If traders are excluded, as they specifically are, surely the whole community, as consumers of these commodities, would come to be included. It is rather difficult to see what is the exact meaning of that clause if, as is specifically stated, the traders and the industrialists, as potential purchasers from the producers, are excluded altogether. All I wish to say further, by no means for the first time, is that it is a treat to listen to the noble Earl expounding these sometimes rather complicated Bills. I can assure him of the prima facie support which he may always expect from all of us, largely owing to his own charm of manner and the ability with which he explains such Bills as this.
  4.48 p.m.
  THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot claim to be an expert on marketing as indeed is the

  145
  noble Lord, Lord Lucas, nor can I claim the vast experience of the previous speakers; I can only declare my interest, which is mainly that of a producer. My interest as a consumer is really only that I consume a good deal of what I produce. I do not have to pay over the counter for much of what I consume, and so I am not so concerned with the price that the consumer has to pay when he has to buy everything from the shop. It appears to me that this Bill, if it becomes law, will be little more than an enabling Act, in that it will enable marketing schemes to be brought into effect. It will also enable some of the recommendations of the Lucas Report to be put into effect. I do not wish to say anything on that Report today, because I hardly think it would be in order to do so on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I was rather amused to read in the Minister's speech on the Second Reading in another place that the Lucas Report "provoked much thought, some argument and occasional hysteria." I hardly think it provoked hysteria, although it certainly provoked a great deal of argument and discussion amongst the farming community. However, we must wait until these marketing schemes come into effect and, to a certain extent, one's opinion must be reserved until that time.
  To some extent—I think to a large extent judging from what I have heard to-day—the specialist producers are affected by the Agricultural Marketing Acts more than the producers of general produce, who are governed by the Schedule of agreed prices. I gather that they are not affected to the same extent. However, the specialist growers are certainly affected, and in regard to specialist crops one would hope to see much closer co-ordination between producer and consumer than one has seen in the past. I have known of cases recently where a man has had to market his cauliflowers at the ridiculously low price of something less than one halfpenny each, and the actual price to the consumer has been eightpence each. That must be wrong, and it must be right for the producer to get a larger share than that for his toil. Therefore, although I speak as a producer, I say that we must have regard to the consumer and give him some sympathetic consideration, because without him it would not be any good producing.
  146
  My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I merely desire to say that farmers generally are afraid of the powers given by Clause 4, and, unless Clause 4 is amended later, they can hope only that this power will be wisely administered. Undoubtedly, as the previous speakers have said, under the present Minister and the noble Earl we can expect it to be wisely administered. Unless the clause is amended, however, we shall have only to hope that this power will be wisely administered. I will conclude by thanking the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for his always sympathetic attitude to requests made to his Ministry, however small they may be. I have also to thank him personally for the kindness he extended to me in giving me some information recently which, although of a very small nature, was most helpful. With those words I, too, welcome the Bill.
  4.54 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you long, but I would like to ask the noble Earl one question on Clause 4—namely, whether he could give us some assurance that during the later stages of the Bill some insertion will be made to ensure that these boards shall receive the fullest information from other Government Departments—notably, of course, the Ministry of Food—of what is likely to happen. This will remove the danger of the boards making arrangements, for instance, by price fixing, which will prejudice the growers and later make the crops they grow become, through Government action, unmarketable. That is a very strong point which needs consideration.
  4.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am extremely glad at the welcome that this Bill has had, even if it was cautious on the part of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe; and I should like to say, even if I am somewhat embarrassed, how grateful I was to hear what has been said in regard to my introduction of the Bill. On the whole, I think this Bill has had a very good reception, with the qualification that there has been some doubt in your Lordships' minds, particularly about Clause 4, and to a lesser extent about Clause 2 in relation to the powers or the Minister. One or two questions have been asked by

  147
  noble Lords which I should like to try and answer. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth asked whether it would be possible for the boards to make experimental research into the production of various commodities. I see that under Section 5 of the 1931 Act there are powers given to the boards to enable them to
  "encourage, promote or conduct agricultural co-operation, research and education."
  Without any doubt that definitely covers research.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, asked several questions, one of which was in regard to the area in which producers might decide whether or not a board should come into being. This would, of course, depend entirely on the area for which the scheme was designed. For instance, in Scotland we have three different Milk Marketing Boards, whereas in England we have only one. Where there is a specific area it would be only the people in that area who would elect whether they had the scheme or not. I hope I have made that clear.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Yes. If I understand aright, so far as England is concerned, and possibly England and Wales, two-thirds of the registered producers would have to come in before a scheme could be initiated under this Bill.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Provided that the scheme was for that particular area. If it was a scheme only for Wales it would be two-thirds of the registered producers of Wales; if it was a scheme for England and Wales, obviously it would be two-thirds of the registered producers of England and Wales. It is two-thirds of whatever area is specified.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Would it, for instance, rule out a particular fruit area in England, such as Kent, on the one hand, or Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire, on the other; or would it necessarily be England on the one hand, or England and Wales on the other?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I hope I have understood the noble Viscount aright. So far as I understand it, it would depend entirely on the scheme. The scheme could be promoted either for a certain limited area, or it could be pro-
  148
  moted for a much larger area altogether—say, for the whole of England. But wherever it was promoted, it would require the approval of two-thirds of the producers in that particular area. I hope that I have made that clear. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raised a point in which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was also interested—namely, about consultation. Obviously, I think, the boards would have the fullest information. We could hardly have big boards such as the Milk Marketing Board that would not have the fullest consultation with Government Departments and also advance information, if that could be given to them. I will look into that matter, and see that adequate provision is made, because a board would be seriously handicapped through not having the information needed.
  The greatest doubt which perhaps exercised the minds of your Lordships was in regard to the powers of the Minister. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was particularly worried over Clause 2, in which the powers are considerable. He mentioned the example of fruit trees, and asked whether the Minister could stop the planting of fruit trees.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am sorry, but I asked the question: Could the Minister, by the exercise of his discretion, discourage the growing of fruit trees, not specifically but by encouraging or authorising large competitive importations of fruit from overseas?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think that is a rather wider question. The Minister could not actually stop the planting of fruit trees because, as your Lordships will have noticed, under the Bill he cannot order the board to do something; he can only restrain the board from doing something which he considers is against the public interest. Added to that, I would like to stress that, except in the case of guaranteed products, the Minister is subject to the findings by the committee of investigation. If the committee find against the Minister, there is nothing he can do about it; he must submit to their judgment. I suggest that, generally speaking, that is a very strong safeguard.
  What is perhaps a more difficult case is the problem which arises under Clause 4 in connection with the service of

  149
  notices, to which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, referred. I would remind your Lordships that these are only temporary directions. They are not permanent; they are to extend over only a short period of time. Although it is conceivable that there might be some loss to the producer in a glut period, I think that in practice it would be found that this would rarely occur. As a rule, the Minister would give a wise decision. He would certainly hesitate before taking any action to restrain a big board from doing something on the ground that it was against the public interest. A very strong case would have to be made out to impel the Minister to act in that way since he would be answerable to Parliament for any error which he might make or for any loss which might be caused to the producers.
  LORD CRANWORTH: How about compensation? Has that been considered, should such a case arise?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The principle has been considered, but it was thought that it was a principle which could not be adopted. The conclusion we reached was that the field would be far too wide, and that the difficulties which would arise would be too great. As I have said, I think, that in practice the Minister would rarely take action as suggested.
  EARL DE LA WARR: In that event, compensation would not be likely to cost the Ministry very much.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That may be true. I will bear that in mind. I think that I have now dealt with most of the questions which have been asked, and I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords. I would like to say again that I hope your Lordships will accept this Bill. No doubt, there will be points raised in Committee, but I think the main thesis of the Bill is extremely valuable and sound. If it is passed and becomes an Act it will be a source of great encouragement to the farmers of this country, and to the agricultural community generally, whom we are asking to do their best in the interests of the nation. I therefore trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CONSOLIDATION OF ENACTMENTS (PROCEDURE) BILL [H.L.]
  5.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a few minutes in which to make an observation or two upon this Bill, which I think is both useful and ingenious. I was not able to be here when the Second Reading was taken on the day before the recent holidays, but I note that the Lord Chancellor was then good enough to refer to the circumstance that he had taken me into consultation. He said that I had made some suggestions and, in substance, I find them in the measure now before the House. Consolidation of Statutes is by no means an easy business; it requires expert handling by men of great knowldedge and adroitness. The meaning of consolidation, in this connection, as your Lordships appreciate, of course, is that you take a bundle of existing Statutes and endeavour to reproduce in one single document their contents, without any alteration at all in the effect of the existing law.
  There is no doubt that that is a matter of great importance. Consolidation expresses the Statute Law in a much more compendious and easily ascertained form, and it also has this advantage: that if the measure is a measure of pure consolidation, then, though there may be ingenious persons in either House of Parliament who would like to take the opportunity of making changes in the law (and few people regard Statute law as entirely satisfactory), they would be out of order if they attempted to do it here. If we take the stricter rules of the other place, the Speaker would undoubtedly say: "No, you cannot move an Amendment, for it would alter the law. The scope of this Bill is solely to consolidate the existing law. Therefore, you will be going outside the Bill if you try to change the law."
  By the means to which I have referred, it has been found possible, at intervals over many years to consolidate and

  151
  produce a useful new edition, a compendious collected edition, of the Statute Law on a particular subject. But there are two special difficulties which attend this process. One is that if you are merely going to reproduce in a single document, without the smallest alteration, the contents of all this collection of Statutes, then, if there is an ambiguity in what has already been enacted, that ambiguity must be repeated. If there is something which is archaic and completely out of date, that archaism must be repeated and included in the consolidating Bill. The result is that such a Bill, if it is carried out with the strictness we have hitherto required, is like—I hope I am right in this—Hamlet's father, who discovered that he had been "dealt with," with all his imperfections on his head.
  That is one difficulty. There is another, almost equally great and very subtle. It is this. Even if a skilled draftsman does reproduce, word for word, in his consolidation what has been already enacted in the past, it by no means follows that when it is re-enacted to-day those words mean exactly the same as they meant at an earlier date. I will not start a matter of controversy which is quite unconnected with the present subject but I mention this merely as an illustration. There are some people who think that at the time when Ireland was the Dominion of Ireland, an Act of Parliament which referred to a citizen of Eire meant a citizen of the Dominion of Eire. That may or may not be so. But, obviously, if you try to reproduce word for word that provision to-day, there can be no doubt that a citizen of Eire means a citizen of the Republic of Eire. Therefore, though the same wording may have been used, it is at least possible that the effect may have been varied. That is a subtle and constantly recurring difficulty which only very skilled men engaged in consolidation are likely to overcome. They have always to watch for it, and to correct it if it happens to occur.
  On the other hand, this Bill, on which I think the Lord Chancellor is much to be congratulated, sets on foot a new and greatly improved process. It is still consolidation, but it is consolidation with a difference, because what you want to do, if possible, is to retain the advantage which a consolidating measure possesses—that ingenious members in either House
  152
  cannot move to amend it (which they might do in a hundred different places if they were allowed)—and yet get rid of these little ambiguities and archaisms. But the existing law must always be preserved, when we are trying to clean up the Statute Book and make it a thing which a layman may read. This Bill aims at securing that result.
  If it should achieve that end by the method of allowing the Executive to profess to be engaged in altering the law, I should be entirely opposed to it, because I consider that the Statute Law is a matter for Parliament and not a matter for any Minister or the Executive, or for any Order in Council. But this Bill does not follow that line. It says merely that when consolidation is undertaken—and we know that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is very zealous on this subject—the Lord Chancellor may present a memorandum to call attention to these small excrescences, these minor ambiguities, these small corrections which everybody will agree ought to be made. Then the consolidation measure will go forward to the Joint Committee of both Houses with this memorandum.
  If the Committee—who represent Parliament and not the Executive, or any Minister—after hearing evidence and considering it, come to the conclusion that this is the sort of small change which ought to be made, and does not require separate legislation, and if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker both approve, then the measure may go forward without losing the protection which is given to Consolidation Bills. This protection means that people cannot in effect destroy a Bill by overloading it with attempts to improve, instead of merely repeating, the law. I think this Bill is both ingenious and useful, and I warmly congratulate my noble and learned friend on the great effort that he has made to bring this change about. I hope that under this Bill there will be from time to time a great cleaning up of the Statute Book. Nobody who has tried to trace through various books, to find out exactly where a particular section was last amended, can be entirely satisfied with the present position, and to have the Statutes in one little set of papers would be a great advantage.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to add this, with the indulgence which the House grants on proper occasions, even when

  153
  a little outside the strict practices of order. I have said that consolidation is a difficult art. Not many people, I think, are likely to be equipped with the necessary qualities. We need a man who has a great and exact knowledge of the Statute Law. We need also a man with a clear head, and with great powers of expression. I do not think your Lordships will think it out of place if I say how much we all deplore that in the last few days the House has lost two very learned and well-equipped Law Lords, who possessed all these qualities and each of whom contributed in a striking degree to the administration of justice and to the improvement which comes from the just understanding of the law. I hope that I may be forgiven for saying how much I join with all others in deploring the sudden and unexpected death of the noble Lords, Lord Uthwatt and Lord du Parcq.
  5.15 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, like the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, I was unable to be present in your Lordships' House when this Bill was read a second time. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was good enough to invite me to be associated with the preliminary discussions which took place on this Bill from its early stages, partly perhaps as representing noble Lords who sit on these Benches, but I think perhaps even more as one who has had the privilege of serving for some time on the Joint Select Committee of both Houses which is charged with the duty of examining Consolidation Bills, and who has on frequent occasions had the additional privilege of presiding over that body. In that capacity I would like to assure your Lordships that this is a Bill the need for which, for the proper discharge of their task, that Committee have frequently discovered. I think it is a just tribute to pay to the initiative and ingenuity of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack and also of the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, that a Bill on this by no means simple subject has now been produced which is able to fulfil the prerequisite of any such measure—of commanding the unqualified assent of ail Parties in the House.
  I would ask that the indulgence which the noble and learned. Viscount has just
  154
  requested may be for one brief moment extended to me to enable me, in my turn, to pay a tribute of profound regret at the loss of two old and cherished friends.
  5.17 p.m.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I also was unable to be present on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am reluctant to let the measure pass its final stage without saying two things: first, to acknowledge the courtesy and help which was extended, especially by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, to those like myself, occupying less eminent positions than that of my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon, and secondly, to say that this Bill is very ingenious and elaborate. It is not at all too ingenious or too elaborate, for without that ingenuity and elaboration it could not have received the form it now has and in which I hope it will pass into law. But, in fact, the success of the operations under it must depend largely on the tacit conventions, both in this House and in another place. Such success as consolidation has had in the past has been due not to anything which has been enacted, but to the general understanding which every member of successive Joint Consolidation Committees has accepted, that in consolidation we should keep strictly within the rules which the noble and learned Viscount has laid down this afternoon.
  If these principles are observed in future by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, by his successors and by the Joint Committee before whom the Bills come, then this Bill will be a success, and the operations under it will be highly effective and a great credit to our general procedure. But if those principles are not observed, if any attempt is made to make them an excuse for substantial alterations of the law, then the Bill will have failed. Everything depends on the acceptance of those principles by every member of each successive Joint Consolidation Committee. It sounds as if that does not matter very much, but, in my recollection, consolidation was brought to a full stop some years ago by the fact that a particular Consolidation Committee did not observe those principles. It is always difficult for any member of a Consolidation Committee who has before him a

  155
  Statute which is not very easy to understand and who thinks it could be made intelligible by a very small alteration, to refrain from trying to make that alteration—which is sometimes made with fatal results. I do not think the warning is quite so ill-placed or unnecessary as it might appear.
  The only other comment I would like to make is this, and I do not think it is going too far. The success of consolidation, as has already been said, depends on the ingenuity, the knowledge and the experience of the draftsmen. I think we ought to acknowledge—we never have the opportunity of acknowledging it publicly—the very great assistance which the draftsmen give to the Joint Consolidation Committees when they appear before them. Without their complete knowledge, frankness and candour in laying their difficulties before us, we could not do our work. The greatest credit is due to them for the knowledge which they possess, and still greater credit is due to them for being able to explain, with perfect candour, where the Committee are likely to go wrong and where they themselves may have gone wrong. It is not usually proper in this House to give testimonials to civil servants, but these men and women are so much in the nature of assistants to this House in the discharge of that particular duty that I hope a word of praise will not be thought presumptuous or out of place on this occasion.
  5.22 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps it is fortunate that we have no clearly-defined Rules of Order. This is an occasion when I find myself in entire agreement with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, by the noble Viscount and by the noble Marquess. Only two days ago my attention was called to the fact that in a Consolidation Bill which was down for Second Reading there was a clause which was questionable. The enactment of that Bill with that clause would have made certain what was perhaps open to argument. Directly that was called to my attention I said that we would not proceed with that Consolidation Bill. I am sure that that is right. I am also certain that it is only by preserving that principle with the utmost strictness that
  156
  we shall be able to make any sort of success of consolidation.
  I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, said in one of his "irregular outbursts" in regard to the assistance of the civil servants. Without the candour, knowledge and skill that they display, and the readiness which they always show in putting their knowledge at the disposal of those serving on the Joint Committee, nothing could be done. If I may now burst out into my own "irregularity," we should also express our gratitude for the work that those who serve on the Joint Consolidation Committee have done. In that Committee the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, have long been prominent. Your Lordships were good enough to congratulate me on this Bill. I do not regard it as my Bill at all; I regard it as a joint effort in which all parties have played their part. Had that not been so, we should never have been able to get this Bill into its present form. I believe it will do really useful work.
  With regard to what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon said, I cannot resist saying that this has been a very sad week for me. Two of my dearest friends have died, friends of lifelong standing, who have in their time, made great contributions to the law. They had been members of your Lordships' House for only some two years, yet each of them had won the enduring friendship of your Lordships. Each of them demonstrated, if I may say so, how untrue it is to think of a lawyer as though he were a sort of living piece of parchment, dull, inhuman and possessed of no sort of humanity at all. One cannot imagine two men more vital and more full of humanity than those two who have been taken away from us. It is a tragic thing that Lord Uthwatt, a son of Australia, went when he was sitting on this Australian appeal. Lord du Parcq has gone just before we shall be having a Bill which will carry out the recommendations of his Committee. However, there it is: they have gone, but they have certainly left their mark on my heart, and, I think, on the hearts of many of your Lordships.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.