LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 24 April 1967)

§ LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am sorry that I did not sit quiet while the noble Lord moved the rejection of the Motion I was about to move. I do not know if that is what he was going to do. It might have made my task a little easier, but I think it is not too difficult a one at the present time. I do not want to discuss this Amendment in any great detail, not out of disrespect for your Lordships' views but because I think that in our earlier discussions we went into all these matters in considerable detail. I will give a brief résumé of the situation and of the Reason for the Commons' disagreement.

355 As it left your Lordships' House, the Amendment would have prevented any compulsory provision for rationalisation or concentration of a development scheme made under Clause 9 from taking effect until five years after the Bill had been enacted and Section 9 had been brought into force. This, as I say, was discussed at considerable length in Committee, when we went into all the arguments. Her Majesty's Government consider, and I myself consider very strongly, that what we have to do in this case is to decide whether or not we are to trust the Meat and Livestock Commission. I suggest to your Lordships that, whoever these gentlemen may be, they will be extremely eminent and able, honourable and reliable people. Therefore, if we are to give such people very important jobs to do with regard to the whole development of the livestock industry, it would be extremely wrong of us to fetter them in any one particular aspect, not because we want them to use that particular power, or even because we think it would be right for them to do so, but because it shows mistrust in their abilities and in their discretion.

I know that noble Lords opposite have contended that the Commission should be content to use their powers of encouragement rather than compulsion, at least until five years have elapsed. I agree entirely that we want the Commission to use their powers of encouragement rather than compulsion, but I am quite sure that they will never use compulsion unless it is absolutely necessary; and it may be that encouragement is sometimes rather more effective if there might conceivably be the possibility of compulsion in the final analysis. So it seems to me that if noble Lords insist on this Amendment they will to some extent be defeating their own purpose, because they will weaken the encouraging powers of the Commission. As I say, I should certainly expect the Commission to use its powers of encouragement wherever it can, but I do not accept the view that there is no possibility whatsoever that a scheme containing compulsory powers will be needed within the period of five years. The Commons have now rejected this Amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is not an issue on which the passage of a 356 Bill should be delayed. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendment.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his charitable correction and for now explaining why the Commons in another place have disagreed with the Amendment which this noble House sent them. May I join with the noble Lord in saying that I hope, as he does, that the members of the Commission will be eminent and reliable people? I referred to the necessity for the Government paying for such people when I dealt with the subject on Third Reading.

The only observation I have to make about the reason for the Commons disagreement is that evidently the Government feel that compulsory powers are an essential element in the successful working of the Commission. We, on the other hand, have felt throughout that this Commission has an extremely difficult job to do, with this vast, complex industry which spreads from production on the farm to the auctioneers, the wholesalers and the retail butchers. We believe that to use compulsory powers in this industry and in those circumstances is so unlikely to be successful that it would be much better to set up the Commission without those powers at all in the first place. The quite marginal Amendment which this noble House made, to withhold compulsory powers for the first five years, seemed to be an entirely wise measure. I cannot believe that the Commission will use compulsory powers to start with in any circumstances and I very much regret that the Commons have felt unable to accept such a wise Amendment.

What is quite clear on the Record is that at the end of the day the Government prefer to rely on compulsion rather than on co-operation and the voluntary assent of the industry to measures which they see are wise measures as the work of the Commission proceeds. But if noble Lords opposite wish this to be on the Record as their choice, I should certainly not advise your Lordships to insist upon this Amendment. Clearly, it is not something which is going to make the 357 Earth fall. I should have thought it wiser for the Government to accept it, but, with great regret, I must bow to their will.