HC Deb 25 July 1960 vol 627 cc84-5W
57. Mr. de Freitas

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his inquiries into the desirability of legislation providing for a different system of tribunals for boards such as the Egg Marketing Board.

62. Mr. Stodart

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the recent proceedings of certain disciplinary committees of agricultural marketing boards, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, he has now decided to repeal the provisions of the Acts, under which these committees were set up.

Mr. Hare

I am circulating below a statement which shows that I uphold the disciplinary committees as the only appropriate means of enforcing the agricultural marketing schemes.

The disturbances to which my hon. Friend refers do not alter my approach to the matter. The House will much dislike the actions of a few people in breaking up a properly constituted public meeting. But it does not follow that we should transfer to the courts what would, as the statement explains, he altogether unsuitable subject-matter. The problem is to secure orderly meetings, and I am giving this serious consideration, in consultation with the Boards and the National Farmers' Union.

Following is the Statement: I have gone most carefully into this question with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The present arrangements stem from the report of an independent committee under Lord Falmouth in 1939. In the light of that report, Parliament decided in 1949 that the enforcement of the schemes, so far as concerns the obligations which farmers owe to their elected Boards, must be the responsibility of the Boards themselves. There are many precedents for domestic self-discipline where people come together to pursue a common interest according to rules acceptable to the majority. The Falmouth Committee reported against the transfer of this enforcement function to the courts. Their reasons hold equally good today. The breaches of rules with which the disciplinary committees are concerned are not offences against the public, or against the criminal law, but against the commercial interests of the majority of the farmers concerned; and the principle is that a producer who breaks the rules should be dealt with by his fellow producers, as represented by their elected Board. Other alternatives have been suggested and considered, such as the creation of some new kind of independent tribunal. But such changes would have the effect, which would be wrong in principle, of making the enforcement of the schemes part of the public judicial system. In these circumstances, we have to make sure that the existing arrangements incorporate sufficient safeguards for the rights of the individual. It may help the House to know what the existing safeguards are. The chairman of each committee is an independent person and is an experienced barrister or solicitor, approved by the appropriate Agriculture Minister. He sits with 4 to 6 members of the respective Board. The producer concerned must be given details in advance of the case against him; evidence may be taken on oath; hearings are normally in public; and if he is not proved to have been in the wrong the producer may, in the committee's discretion, recover his costs. If the producer is dissatisfied with the committee's decision, he has the right to go to arbitration; and on a point of law he may appeal to the High Court. These are powerful safeguards of the rights of the individual; and my right hon. Friends and I are satisfied that farmers and the public have no grounds to fear unfair treatment. Generally, we have concluded that these disciplinary committees are the best way of assuring the observance of agricultural marketing schemes approved by Parliament, and that we need have no hesitation in reaffirming our support for them.