§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to receive the report of the Committee of Investigation at present studying the Consumers' Committee report on complaints on the operation of the British Egg Marketing Scheme; and what immediate steps they intend to take to minimise known hardship.]
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I am unable to forecast when the Committee will complete their task. Besides the report of the Consumers' Committee, they have also to consider a complaint by Messrs. Western Egg Pasteurising Co., Ltd. relating to second quality eggs, and it will be for the Committee to decide how they deal with those two matters.
As my right honourable friend said on July 15, the Agriculture Ministers do not consider that the degree of hardship disclosed by the Consumers' Committee report would justify them in taking immediate action by way of a temporary direction under Section 21 of the Agricultural Marketing Act for the purpose of preventing injury to the public interest.
LORD HENLEYMy Lords, I know that the Minister has already said that he would not make a special case of this under Section 21, but in view of the known hardship, and in view of the fact that we know that at least one company is going into liquidation because of this, would he not be prepared to reconsider his decision and make an order under 962 Section 21 of the Agricultural Marketing Act? All this would do would be to put us back to square one. It seems to me that this would be a reasonable thing to do, and it would not upset the scheme in any way.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the operative words of Section 21 of the Act are
immediate action for the purpose of preventing injury…My right honourable friends do not believe that the report of the Consumers' Committee was sufficiently strong to indicate that there had been actual injury. It is injury, as opposed to hardship or expense, that is the operative factor.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that if a firm is forced into liquidation by methods which, according to the evidence, are distinctly questionable, that really is hardship? Can he deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on the point of immediate action? We shall be sitting only for two more days. What will happen to this particular firm is nothing is done, or if the noble Earl is unable to give an assurance that speedy action will be taken?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the Committee of Investigation are looking into this matter, and it is after they have reported that the Minister should make up his mind what to do. It would obviously be improper for me to say now whether or not the Board is right or wrong, because that matter is sub judice.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, could the noble Earl say when the Committee are expected to report, and when we may expect a decision from the Minister?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, it is impossible to give a clear date. All I can say is that in these cases it normally takes some two or three months, because the appellants have to provide their witnesses and so on, and on this occasion there are two subjects for the Committee to investigate. I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly how long it will take.
LORD HENLEYMy Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that this does constitute an injury? Would he say in 963 what way the scheme would be jeopardised by making an order under Section 21?
EARL. FERRERSMy Lords, I do not think that at the moment there is any evidence that it is an injury, because the Committee set up to investigate whether or not there is an injury have not yet reported. As my right honourable friend has indicated, I think it would be inappropriate at this moment to take action under Section 21.