PART III (Hansard, 13 March 1967)

§ LORD WALSTON
Let me start straight away by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that neither Her Majesty's Government nor I have any bias whatsoever against private slaughterhouses. I would hope to see anybody, or any body, who is capable of playing a useful part in increasing the efficiency of the meat trade given ample opportunity to do so. That is the main objective of the Livestock Commission, so there need be no fear whatsoever about that. I think we all accept the fact that the smaller a committee the more effective it is. We do not want to have vast bodies with everybody representing one particular interest and speaking for that interest alone. We want to achieve a body where all the main activities of the industry are represented, where people may, and can, speak with personal knowledge of the main activities, but where they do not regard themselves as delegates of that particular section out to look after its narrow interests at the expense of the wider interests of the whole industry. That is why we have sought to 97 keep a balance between a small and manageable body and a large body representing everybody who has anything at all to do with the industry.
It is perfectly true that there are a good many interests who are not represented on the Livestock Commission; for instance, the transport interests. They are very valuable and useful people. Without them the cattle could not be brought to the slaughterhouse and carcasses could not be taken away. They play a vital and intrinsic part in the whole picture of distribution, wholesale and retail. But they are not specifically represented. Nor are the veterinary organisations. Again, without them there could be no effective slaughtering of livestock. So it is not just one particular group, the private slaughterhouse people, who are being discriminated against. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think it has been drawn in a reasonable manner where it has been drawn in this Schedule.
If it is a question of representing interests—and of course it is perfectly true that the interests of different people and different organisations have to be heard—I think there is a misapprehension about the function of this Committee, which I should like to clear up. There seems to be an impression that unless the Bill provides for a particular chair, labelled with the name of a particular interest, there will be no possibility of any section of the industry, unless it is sitting in a labelled chair, being consulted by the Commission or influencing their policy. Of course this is not so at all. For one thing, and most obviously, there is nothing at all to stop anyone from going to the Commission, or to stop the Commission consulting particular interests which their work may affect from time to time. Secondly, if the Commission are persuaded that on some issue there should be more formal arrangements, the Bill as it stands gives the Commission full power to set up a joint committee for this purpose with just the right people on it, whoever they may be. So there is no difficulty and no impediment to prevent the Commission from consulting private slaughterhouse operators as such if they consider it appropriate, nor anything to prevent the private slaughterhouse operators from going to the Commission if they wish.
98 What I think is really more important—and the noble Lord did just touch on this—is that in almost every case the operators of private slaughterhouses are either wholesalers, retailers, curers or manufacturers, and there is already provision for each of those interests to be represented on the Distribution Committee. So that from the practical point of view—and, after all, we are attempting to make, and I think have succeeded in making, this Bill a practical Bill—the views of private slaughterhouse operators will certainly be fully and directly expressed in the Committee as it stands. Even though they may not be sitting there specifically as operators of private slaughterhouses, they will be sitting there either as wholesalers, retailers, curers or manufacturers.
For all of these reasons—the need to keep the Distribution Committee to a workable size, the means already available for consultation, which I have outlined, whether they be formal or informal, and the fact that the views of private slaughterhouse operators will in practice be very well represented on the Distribution Committee through a number of different types of members—I think that specific provision for the representation of private slaughterhouse operators on the Committee would be unnecessary and unwise, in view of the size of the Committee. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his answer to my Amendment. May I particularly thank him for his opening words that neither he nor any other member of Her Majesty's Government has any bias against private slaughterhouses, and they wish to see them performing their full function. This was, I thought, the most valuable part of his speech, because it will help to remove the impression which the present constitution of the Distribution Committee has given. It has caused quite a good deal of uneasiness in the trade. I do not think it would be helpful to argue the other points which the noble Lord made beyond just making the point that the other people he mentioned, like cattle transporters and vets., have something else to do. If you have a slaughterhouse, all you can do is slaughter cattle in it. If the Government do not want you to 99 do that, there is nothing else you can slaughter in it.

A NOBLE LORD
Slaughter the Government!

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
Yes, if you could get them there you might. I think the private slaughterhouse people have a point there. As I say, I welcome the noble Lord's assurance, and I hope this will remove the impression that has become general in the trade, and I hope that the Commission, in picking the Distribution Committee, will make sure the other categories who are specified will in fact include men who have private slaughterhouses, to make sure that they are represented there, and on those terms I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD BALERNO
I beg to move this Amendment, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Baroness Elliot of Harwood, being the representative from Scotland here to-day. The reason why this has been put forward by the noble Baroness is that a piece of machinery which is capable of being moved from one place of operation to another will not qualify for grant, although it is not in operation during the process of moving. When this matter was before the Committee earlier on an Amendment put forward by my noble friend, I suggested that instead of the word "fixed" the word "static" might be used. That would allow a fixed piece of machinery to be moved, although not in operation while it was being moved. I hope that the Government might have had further thoughts upon this whole subject. I beg to move.

§ LORD HUGHES
I should be happy if I could offer to accept this Amendment for the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, as a consolation for travelling down here, as I did from home on Sunday, but I should think it would be as much 100 as my life was worth to concede to him, in the absence of the noble Baroness, something which I did not concede to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, earlier when she was present. I must admit this is not exactly the same Amend-met as the previous one, because the earlier Amendment to Clause 31 dealt with investment grants, whereas this deals with farm improvement grants.
I indicated, when the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, put forward his suggestion in relation to using the word "static" rather than "fixed" that I did not think it was going to make any difference. Nothing has been said to me in the period since we last discussed this particular aspect of fixed, static or mobile which has caused me to change my mind. The farm improvement scheme is, as the opening words of Clause 30 indicate, limited to long-term improvements for the benefit of agricultural land, and in practice we shall not assist improvements unless satisfied that they are likely to go on benefiting the particular farm concerned for at least ten years.
For that reason, it has been felt appropriate that grants on plant and machinery should be limited to fixed plant and machinery, including fixtures and fittings. While the noble Lord conceded that I did give him authority to drive a lawn mower through the regulations, I am very sorry I cannot give him any encouragement to do the same in relation to these farm improvement grants. I think it is rather stretching the imagination to regard some of these items of equipment as being long-term improvements and therefore capable of being assisted under this particular grant. I am sorry not to he more helpful to the noble Lord, and while I am certain he would have skipped back happily to Scotland or even dallied on the way to ring up the noble Baroness and tell her the Amendment was through, this is a pleasure which I must deny him.

§ LORD BALERNO
While not feeling altogether satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I have no desire to prolong the sitting of this Committee further than is necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.