Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/jul/23/agricultural-marketing-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:04:32+00:00

Document:
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Submission and approval of schemes.
§ 1.—(1) A scheme regulating the marketing of an agricultural product by the producers thereof, or of any kind or variety of such a product by the producers of that kind or variety, may be submitted to the Minister by the persons specified in Part I 1060 of the First Schedule to this Act, and the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this section, approve the scheme.
§ (3) Before approving a scheme, the Minister shall cause to be published, in the Gazette and in such other manner as he thinks best for informing persons affected, notice of the submission of the scheme, of the place where copies thereof may be obtained (on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by the notice) and inspected, and of the time (which shall not be less than six weeks after such publication) within which objections and representations with respect to the scheme may be made.
§ (c) before making any such modifications, the Minister shall give notice of the proposed modifications to the persons submitting the scheme, and unless within four weeks after notice has been so given or such longer time as the Minister may allow, those persons notify the Minister that they assent to the modifications, the Minister shall take no further action under this section.
§ (8) The Minister, on laying before each House of Parliament a draft of a scheme under the last foregoing subsection, shall at the same time lay before each House a report as to the evidence by which he has been satisfied for the purpose of Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act that the persons submitting the scheme were duly representative.
§ LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (1), after the first "product," to insert "as hereinafter defined." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that we should know at the very start what products we really are going to deal with, and the Amendment should be read in conjunction with another Amendment which I have down to the first paragraph of Clause 18. Clause 18 says: 'Agricultural product' includes any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals. As I read it that definition would include beer and whisky. I think we ought to have it clearly stated by the Minister at the very beginning whether it does include such articles, which are not usually 1061 known as agricultural products, or whether, either by the Bill itself or by any other means which he can suggest, those articles can be kept outside the scope of the Bill. It seems rather a startling proposition that a committee of farmers should have power to regulate the sale of beer and whisky.
I think this Amendment is really put down under a misunderstanding, because it is only the producers of a product who can formulate a scheme for that product. Therefore, while it is quite true that theoretically you might have a scheme for beer or whisky, that scheme can only be formulated by the beer producers or the whisky producers, and I do not think that that is very likely. They can come together now if they want to, but I do not think that they are likely to come in under a scheme where they have a consumers' committee watching their actions. I think that what the noble Lord has in mind is that the producers of barley might formulate a scheme affecting the producers of beer. That could not be done under the Bill. The producers of barley could formulate a scheme for barley only.
Inasmuch as it is a product by itself, the producer of the raw material, barley, cannot formulate a scheme for the manufactured article.
Is the noble Earl quite certain he is right? Take a pig factory. It is true we want everything and even the squeak is said to be bottled. Really the producer of the pigs will be the person to draw up the scheme for the pig factory. It will not be the man who produces sausages only: it will concern everything that comes from a pig. In the same way, everything that comes from malt or hops would come under one control. Or you might even have a bread control, because bread should be made from flour and yeast. I think the definition goes much wider than the Gov- 1062 ernment intend. I frankly do not know because I have not had time to study the Amendment, but I think something wants doing.
I will certainly look into it, but it remains true that the producers can only deal with their own products. I have already been into this matter very carefully because the noble Lord kindly mentioned it yesterday and I can assure him that it is dealt with.
If the noble Earl will make sure that Clause 18 really means what it says it does, I will withdraw my Amendment.
The next Amendment is drafting.
§ The noble Lord said: This looks a formidable Amendment but it imposes no new liability on the Minister. It merely alters his obligations to compile a list from the last stage of the process of bringing in the scheme to the first stage. It says, in effect, that the Minister is to start after he has been notified of the scheme being submitted to him and he is to compile; a list there and then. Without such a list I do not see how the persons who could frame a scheme can satisfy the Minister, in the words of the Schedule to which we are referred that they are substantially representative of the persons who produce that product. How can they satisfy the Minister of that till he knows who the producers are? Similarly, he has himself to be 1063 satisfied on two points: first, as to the number of persons represented; and secondly, as to the quantity of the product. How could he answer either of those questions to his own satisfaction unless the list of producers of the product in that area has already been compiled.
§ Moreover, when a scheme is submitted and approved by himself, he has to go to Parliament and to report to Parliament the evidence on which he has relied for being satisfied that the scheme was duly representative. How can he submit any evidence that the scheme was duly representative unless he has compiled a list showing the number of persons who are to be represented? Therefore this Amendment proposes in the language of the Bill itself to bring the obligation of compiling a list to the starting point, instead of as at present retaining it till the end. Under the Bill as it stands the list is only to be compiled when the scheme has not only been submitted and approved by the Minister and by Parliament but is actually in force. I hope the noble Earl will consider this proposal in the friendly spirit in which it is moved. The reason for it seems to me to be enormously strengthened if we consider that under Clause 15 there is to be a coercive power exercised over these producers to accept the scheme. If they are to wait under such a coercive scheme until the very last moment when it is far too late for many of them to protest, I think real injustice will be done to people who are very hard driven to earn their livelihood.
I do not think there is any objection in principle to this Amendment. If the noble Lord would let us consider it before Report in relation to its drafting, I think it would perhaps be convenient. There is one difficulty, that of course it must not be made obligatory on the Minister to compile this list from the agricultural returns because in some products the agricultural returns do not give full details. Certain soft fruits and so on are all lumped together in the returns. But, subject to that qualification, we can discuss the matter, and we will certainly consider it.
If the noble Earl is going to consider the question of drafting, I think more consideration ought to be given as to whether it is really desirable to repeal the powers under the Act of 1925. The relevant clause of that Act says: No individual return or part of a return made under the Act shall be used, published or disclosed without the authority of the person making it or of the occupier on whose behalf it is made …. The noble Earl will remember that when that Act was being passed it was urged that, as the return was compulsory, it was all the more necessary to ensure absolute secrecy and that the Act should not be used for any other purpose. Now it is proposed that it shall be used for another purpose entirely, and I am afraid that unless there are safeguards (which Lord Ernle might be inclined to put in) some occupier might be damnified. On the other hand, I do not know why it is necessary, because it could be done with the consent of the man who made the return. Therefore it would be quite easy for a Minister to ask for leave. I do not like in this haphazard manner to repeal this section of the Act of 1925, which was put in for the protection of producers in order that no trade secrets or information about the amount of stock they have on hand might be disclosed. There are all sorts of reasons why a man does not want known what his position is.
I think I must correct the noble Lord here. This matter was very carefully discussed in another place among all Parties, and it was agreed that, in so far as it is merely a question of giving the names of producers of certain products, there really could be no objection. I do not think any of us who have cows to milk would object to our address being given to anybody as a milk producer. There are certain details which we do not want given, but that is not one of them. I am afraid I cannot promise consideration of that.
The next two Amendments are drafting.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (5) (c), before, "the persons," to insert "such persons (not being less than nine or more than twenty-one) as may be nominated for the purpose, at the time of the submission of the scheme by". The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendment stand together. They are inserted in order to overcome a certain difficulty that, whereas thousands of producers may submit a scheme, it would be somewhat difficult to get into touch with them all with regard to modifications. Therefore it is proposed that they should nominate a committee of not less than nine and not more than twenty-one who should be competent to act for them in considering these modifications. I beg to move.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (6), to insert as a new subsection: (7) Any rules made by the Minister under this section shall as soon as may be after they are made be laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rules are laid before it, resolves that the rules be annulled, the rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules. The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the clause into line with the rest of the Bill in respect to laying rules before Parliament. I beg to move.
(b) in a case where the scheme is a substitutional scheme, lay before that House a report showing that the provisions of the proviso to Part I of that Schedule have been complied with."
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Constitution of boards to administer schemes.
§ Provided that, during such period (not being longer than twelve months after the scheme comes into force) as may be specified in the scheme, the board shall, subject as aforesaid, be composed of persons named in the scheme, and except in the case of a substitutional scheme two persons nominated by the Minister after consultation with the persons who submitted the scheme.
§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in the proviso, to leave out "and except in the case of a substitutional scheme two persons nominated by the Minister after consultation with the persons who submitted the scheme." The noble Duke said: There has been such a very short time in which to consider this Bill especially as it has been altered so much 1067 in another place that perhaps the noble Earl opposite will explain this point. Ft seems to me that the words at the top of page 4 which I suggest should be left out are neither necessary nor desirable. I do not see any reason why two persons should be nominated by the Minister. I beg to move.
This provision has become rather more important since the insertion in the Bill of the arrangement for taking a poll. Until the poll is taken, and until and unless that poll approves a scheme, the Minister is responsible for the expenses; so that if after all the preparations for the scheme the poll went against the scheme, the Minister would be responsible for the expenses. Therefore I hope the noble Duke will agree that it is only right that the Minister should have this representation.
§ Poll on question whether scheme to remain in force.
§ 3.—(1) Every scheme except a substitutional scheme shall require a poll of the registered producers to be taken, within such time as may be specified in the scheme, on the question whether the scheme shall remain in force.
the provisions of the scheme, the operation of which is suspended (under the provisions hereafter contained in this Act) until the declaration of the result of the poll, shall come into force as from the date on which the result of the poll is declared, but in any other case the scheme shall cease to have effect as from the said date and the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply as if the scheme had been revoked.
§ (5) For the purposes of this section, a person who is registered as a producer notwithstanding that he has been exempted from registration by or under the provisions of the scheme, shall not be deemed to be a registered producer.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "two-thirds" and insert "four-fifths." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that a larger majority shall be required and a larger number of persons shall consent to the objects of this particular clause. I may say regarding the substitution of four-fifths for two-thirds that I am supported by the Federation of British Industries, who have been in communication with me and who consider it very necessary in the interests of their producers that the majority should be four-fifths instead of two-thirds, upon the general principle that you ought to be quite certain that you get a majority of 100 per cent. of the people concerned. I beg to move.
I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment. The question of the necessary proportion for a majority has been very thoroughly considered by His Majesty's Government, and we have come to the conclusion that, in view of all the safeguards that are already in the Bill and the fact that there is no doubt that there is bound to be an enormous amount of inertia with regard to these schemes, if we were to have more than a two-thirds majority (after all many polls are decided on a simple majority) we should 1069 never get a scheme through at all. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
I might add that we have before us a very great number of examples of what is done in the Dominions. Nearly all of their schemes vary in demanding a majority of from 51 per cent. to 66 per cent; 66 per cent. that is two-thirds, in all except one instance is the largest that is operating in any of these Dominion schemes, and they have great experience of this matter.
Perhaps my noble friend Lord Strachie will not insist on this Amendment having regard to those which follow in the name of Lord Hastings. I think he will see there are some further Amendments to the clause which have the object of introducing safeguards so as to get as many fanners and producers to vote as possible. If that is the case, I think we shall attain our object better under those Amendments than by inserting this extended proportion in the clause we are now discussing. On the whole I think the noble Earl is right in saying there will be a large amount of inertia, and what we are really trying to do is to get the farmers to vote. I think we can accept two-thirds as a majority on that vote.
On the whole I agree with what the noble Earl has said. On looking through the Amendments I should not have been inclined to go on with this Amendment had I not been urged by the Federation of British Industries to do so. Many of your Lordships will agree, no doubt, that that is a very important body. They pressed me to proceed with the Amendment. But as no noble Lord who is interested in the Federation of British Industries is either here or taking an interest in the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "and if moreover evidence is produced which shall satisfy the Minister beyond all reasonable doubt that an actual majority of producers eligible for registration have voted in favour of the scheme." The noble Lord said: Under this Bill as it stands it is clear that a minority is able to over-rule a majority. 1070 I would take the case of 1,000 people engaged in an industry. It might well be that only 100 of them would register, seventy of whom would vote for a scheme and thirty against it. The effect of this would be that seventy people out of a total of 1,000 would bring a scheme into effect. Furthermore, they would have the power of putting out of operation 900 people in that business. The noble Earl in charge of this Bill will tell me that this is most improbable; I do not think he can say it is impossible. I do not think it is improbable, and I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice two reasons for saying so.
§ First of all, the producers of an article are being asked by this Bill to enter an unlimited liability company. Not only is it an unlimited liability company when it is wound up, but it is unlimited in regard to the contingent expenses while it is being carried on. I think a very large number of producers will be afraid to enter an unlimited liability company. The second thing I would bring to your notice is that it would be in the interests of the promoters of a scheme that the registered producers should be as small a proportion as possible of the number of producers. It will be clearly in the interests of the big producers that they should have a monopoly of a product and that the smaller producers should be shut out.
§ It is impossible, I think, to consider this Amendment without considering the alternative Amendment which is being brought forward by my noble friend Lord Hastings. Under his Amendment if there are 1,000 producers 344 can pass a scheme into operation and can shut out from production 499 producers. That is a fact. Who are the people who will be the majority? They will be the promoters of the scheme, the big men, the rich men, the people with big herds and big acreage. Who will be the 499 people who are shut out? They will be the small man, the poor man, the man with a few acres, the man with a cow or two and the man with a few chickens. These are the people who will be shut out under that Amendment.
§ The noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) will, I think, say that the difficulty in the Ministry will be to get the evidence, which I ask him to try and obtain, beyond all reasonable doubt. I 1071 do not think there will be any difficulty at all. I think in nineteen cases out of twenty he will have the evidence in the Ministry, and in the twentieth case all he has to do is to say to the promoters: "I am not satisfied that there is a majority of the producers in favour of this scheme, and I ask you to supply me with evidence that will convince me on that point." I would further point out that there has been accepted an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, by which there will be a list of these producers. In every case it will be perfectly easy for the Minister, and there will be no difficulty for him in saying whether or not there is a majority in favour of the scheme.
§ This is a matter of principle. I think we may be told that this is a case in which expediency should triumph over principle. I am not one of those who lightly sacrifice principle to a matter of expediency. This is a most important measure; it is the most important measure that has been introduced during the present Parliament in regard to agriculture. So far as farmers are concerned, it is a far more important Bill than the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill. Every single person engaged in the industry of agriculture may be affected by this, and many people who are not engaged in it but who are connected with it may be affected. I am sorry your Lordships have not had an opportunity to give more attention to this Bill. I think that is a most regrettable thing. I am going to ask your Lordships now, not at the eleventh hour, but at the third hour, to do something to remove what everyone in this House must regard as an injustice. Your duty is perfectly clear in this matter. If you think it right that a minority of rich and powerful men should in their own financial interest override a majority of poor and friendless men, then you will vote against my Amendment. On the other hand, if you think a majority, however poor and small, have their rights, you will, I hope, and I ask you to do so, vote in favour of my Amendment. I beg to move.
§ LORD HASTINGS, who had given Notice of a number of Amendments, including one to insert the following at the end of subsection (2): Provided that if it is found to the satisfaction of the Minister at any time before the expiration of the suspensory period that the number of producers voting on the poll was less than half the total number of producers (excluding producers exempted, or entitled to exemption, from registration by or under the provisions of the scheme) he shall forthwith by order revoke the scheme"— said: This, as your Lordships will recognise, is one of the fundamental points in the Bill. It is altogether beyond a question of machinery. My noble friend Lord Cranworth is right in describing it as one of principle. On the occasion of the Second Heading those of your Lordships who are here will remember that I laid great stress upon the necessity of somehow or other finding means of avoiding what is something worse than a grievance—namely, that the majority would, under the Bill, have the power of coercing the real majority. That was the whole principle.
§ Those of your Lordships who looked at the earlier Amendments will have seen in my name a number of Amendments which were put down in the hope of being able to find a way out of this difficulty, but, on further consideration, it was thought by myself as well as by others that to give an extension of the already much disliked principle of compulsion would be a mistake. Therefore we gave up any attempt to compel registration so that this poll should be a poll of the whole of the producers instead of only a select part. Having given that up, it became necessary to discover means, if possible, whereby the producers, as a whole, could be induced to vote. If you decide not to compel them, your only alternative is to try to induce them. That was the line on which we went. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, says with perfect truth that if the Amendments that stand in my name were accepted the grievance would, to a certain extent, still remain. That is undeniable. There is no question whatever that the figures he has given are correct. The 344 could coerce the balance of a 1073 thousand. I think it, would be convenient to your Lordships and would save time if we had a general discussion now on my Amendments as well as upon that of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth.
§ A great many of my Amendments are in the nature of consequential Amendments, and the question at the moment is to decide whether the alternative put down on the Paper by Lord Cranworth is preferable to that put down by myself. Provided we are all agreed, as I think we are, to give up the principle of further compulsion and concentrate upon attempting to induce these persons to vote, we then have to decide how that can best be done. Those who have discussed this matter at great length came to the conclusion that one of the best ways to do it was to make it perfectly certain that those who took part in the vote should thereby incur no financial liability of any sort whatever. That was not clear in the Bill as it came from another place. There is no doubt whatever that those unfriendly to the whole principle of the Bill would make great play of the fact that persons who entered into registration would thereby render themselves liable to fines, or at any rate incur obligations. Words have now been put down in my name which make it clear that that financial obligation no longer exists.
§ That does, in my view, provide a great inducement to producers to come up to the scratch and do their voting in the early stages of the scheme. We found a second means of safeguarding the interests of a majority which still was unwilling to vote, which still felt that even if it had no financial obligation it still would not vote. To protect the interests of that majority we have put down words providing that the Minister shall be satisfied in certain directions. That is where my noble friend Lord Cranworth and I come together. The other part he has not touched upon. There is a subtle difference, but a very important one, between these two Amendments. Lord Cranworth desires that the onus shall be upon the producers to prove to the Minister that the majority of the producers have voted.
The noble Lord will pardon me; my Amendment is that 1074 the Minister should satisfy himself that there is a majority in favour of the measure.
That is unquestionably exact, but in effect it would mean that the Minister could not satisfy himself that the majority had voted unless the promoters produced evidence to show that they had done so.
But he has the list.
But, as has been explained, not in all eases is that list an entirely effective one. In effect it would mean that the promoters of the scheme would have to satisfy the Minister that the majority of them had taken part in this poll, whereas the words which I have put down on the Paper, and which I do not in the least prefer, merely suggest an alternative. Under my Amendment it is proposed that those who are dissatisfied—that is to say those who, after a given period, discover that a scheme is afoot, who take no part in the voting, and who consider there is a majority who do not want the scheme—may put themselves in a position to approach the Minister and satisfy him that they who were left out in the first instance do in fact constitute the majority of the producers. That is the difference. Under my Amendment, not the promoters, but those who are dissatisfied have to go to the Minister and prove that they are a majority, and the scheme should not be allowed until they have been heard. That is the whole difference between the two.
I think that this risk of a minority coercing the majority of the whole is a great one, and it is one that ought to be removed if it possibly can be removed. But when you get down to the facts of the case, and begin to try to remove the difficulties, you find they are tremendous. I am personally prepared to stick to my Amendment in the belief that it does go as near as possible to providing proper safeguards for these majorities who in the early stages are not taking any part, and that it will save them from the kind of coercion which everyone of your Lordships would regret that they should be submitted to. Having said what I have said, it will be unnecessary for me, I am sure your 1075 Lordships will be pleased to know, to speak again on my own Amendment. I thought it would be better and that it would save time if I did the whole thing now. Your Lordships must decide for yourselves which of the two alternatives would be better.
Unless I misunderstood my noble friend who has just sat down, the position he puts is that under his Amendment a minority can still coerce a majority, but that the majority may by taking certain steps see the Minister and tell him the facts of the case.
Well, that is putting the majority to a very considerable amount of trouble—they will have to get together a lot of people to see the Minister, and they may not be able to see the Minister—whereas the Amendment of my noble friend on my left simply says there is to be a list, which I understand my noble friend Lord Ernle has succeeded in extracting from the Government. What is more simple than for the Minister to take a census of those who have voted, compare it with the names on the list, and then see whether a majority have voted or whether they have not? It seems to me a simple proposition, and I shall have pleasure in voting with my noble friend Lord Cranworth. The only comment I would make on his speech is to ask why he did not vote against the Second Reading. It would have saved a lot of trouble.
I have told you why.
Perhaps I may answer my noble friend Lord Banbury on one small point. It is not so easy to make a list as he seems to think.
Lord Ernle, I understand, introduced the Amendment to make a list.
Yes, and it is accepted.
Whatever he does is always right.
I agree with my noble friend. Lord Ernle is always right. But when we have made our list we shall not be quite clear about it for two 1076 reasons. The first is that it has to be got by the census return. If you take one subject alone—soft fruits—I understand that everyone who produces soft fruits will appear in the same return. He may be a grower of raspberries or currants or strawberries or gooseberries. You might have four or five growers of separate fruits, but they will all come on the soft fruit list. I understand the Minister cannot produce a list showing who produces strawberries and who produces gooseberries. Secondly, any scheme would undoubtedly contain a very large number of exemptions—at least I hope so. The man who grows for consumption by an individual will probably be excluded and would not come into the list, because there is no reason why he should appear for or against a scheme which does not concern him. Therefore, to make out a list is very difficult, and it is not very easy in that respect to fit on to it Lord Cranworth's Amendment, for which I have the greatest possible sympathy.
We shall all be in the lunatic asylum when this Bill is passed.
I think really we can say that both these Amendments are friendly to the Bill. It is merely a question of trying to ascertain which is going to work best with the rest of the machinery of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has put to your Lordships very clearly, first and foremost in considering this matter of voting we had to consider whether we were going to proceed by means of compelling every producer under pain and penalty to register himself for the poll, or whether we were going to proceed by the voluntary method of increasing the inducements—or shall we say decreasing the fears that a producer might have in his mind which would prevent him registering or persuade him not to register? We decided that really the most practical method and by far the best method of dealing with the problem, both from the actual and the psychological point of view, was to say that we would attempt to remove these fears. Accordingly, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, put down certain Amendments leaving the financial liability to be dealt with later.
Having decided that, we had to face the fact that in certain circumstances, as 1077 both the noble Lords, Lord Cranworth and Lord Hastings, have pointed out, it might be that only a minority of producers voted, and that therefore you might be faced with the situation that the majority of a minority was compelling an actual majority. Mathematically that may be the position, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that both these Amendments are really put down to deal with that situation. Mathematically, of course, Lord Cranworth's Amendment is more likely to achieve the full accomplishment of that principle, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that really his Amendment does go rather far in the direction of weighting the machinery of the Bill against a scheme. When all is said and done, the reason for this situation occurring is the inertia of the producers—the fact that a number of producers have not bothered to vote. Is it fair to say that the whole weight of that inertia shall be put against the operation of the scheme? I do not think it is.
The noble Lord rather assumed in his statement of the case that really there was a certain body of producers who might be termed poor, friendless men. He seemed to speak almost as if they had not got a vote. But this voting is based on one man one vote, and every man is entitled to register and give his vote. Let me take the matter further. Not only is he entitled to vote, but it is going to be four or five months at least after the beginning of the scheme before he is called on to vote. Really, after all the stages have been gone through it is inconceivable that there can be any producer who does not know all about the scheme. The scheme has to be submitted by a sufficient proportion of producers to satisfy the Minister. The scheme has to be published. It can be modified and referred back, and then it has to come before Parliament and be approved by Parliament. Not until all these steps have been taken is the producer called on to record his vote at the poll. Therefore I do suggest that voters have every opportunity of voting, and if a man does not vote against the scheme I think we ought to be allowed to infer to a considerable extent that he does not feel very strongly against it.
In spite of that, we fully recognise that there is a case, and now it comes 1078 down to the question which Amendment the Government prefer. In view of the fact that we feel Lord Cranworth's Amendment to be too exact, and to ask really to begin with for too exact a list, and secondly that it places the whole weight of inertia against the scheme, we think that Lord Hastings' Amendment is more in keeping with the spirit of this Bill, which is an attempt to get schemes going as soon as we can to help the producer, while at the same time inserting in the Bill every reasonable safeguard. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, goes a very long way in that direction, because his Amendment says that if, after the poll has been taken, the Minister is satisfied that less than one-half of the total number of producers have voted, then he shall by order revoke the scheme. That goes a very long way, I suggest, towards meeting Lord Cranworth's suggestion.
May I suggest that it does not do so?
It is the unfortunate men who have to prove it, not for the Minister to satisfy himself.
Well, if they have not bothered to vote after all these proceedings have been gone through, surely some responsibility must be put upon them. You cannot nurse them all the time, and if it is a question of somebody in the end having to take these steps, I think the very least that you can do is to ask them to wake up and prove their case. I suggest that we have been generous in offering that to them.
I think the noble Earl who has just spoken has made a perfectly sound point. My noble friend Lord Cranworth assumes that all producers will be either for or against the scheme. That will not be so. There will be a large number of producers in every case who have no opinion whatever, and will not take the trouble of expressing an opinion or taking steps. I do not think it is fair that they should be able to stop the scheme. Accordingly I shall vote for the proposal of Lord Hastings rather than for that of Lord Cranworth.
There are no rich farmers in my county.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "declaration of the result of the poll," and to insert "expiration of the suspensory period." The noble Lord said: This is not exactly the Amendment on which we have had a Division, but the opposite, and having defeated the last Amendment I think the Committee will accept this Amendment.
The biggest farmers; and it is just these smaller men who will have difficulty in getting together. They will never get together to obtain the things they want. If the scheme goes through, they will never have a chance of going to the Minister and proving that they are a majority. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Hastings allows the minority to carry the majority with it. I think that is wrong in principle, and if I can get anyone to support me I must ask your Lordships to go to a Division.
§ On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 36.
Airlie, E. Cranworth, L. [Teller.] Redesdale, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Erskine, L. Remnant, L.
Lauderdale, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Sinclair, L.
Radnor, E. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) Somerleyton, L.
Burnham, V. Lawrence, L. Swinfen L.
Elibank, V. Phillimore, L. Wavertree, L.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) Midleton, E. Clwyd, L.
Dufferin and Ava, M. Stradbroke, E. Hastings, L.
Linlithgow, M. Bertie of Thame, V.
Bridgeman, V. Howard of Glossop, L.
Balfour, E. Hailsham, V. Marks, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Arnold, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Bayford, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Leven and Melville, E. ClanWilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Roundway, L.
Does that apply to all the Amendments? If so, I will put them en bloc.
§ Page 4, line 28, leave out from ("force") to ("but") in line 29 and insert ("at the expiration of that period").
§ Page 4, line 30, leave out ("as from the said date") and insert ("at the expiration of that period").
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to secure that a producer shall not be debarred from voting simply because ho. refuses to supply information which may be demanded of him by the promoters of a marketing scheme. Such information might easily be of a confidential business character. I also look for some explanation as regards this clause. Paragraph (c) says a scheme may prescribe the information to be furnished by every registered producer before or at the time of voting. It seems rather a curious provision, "before" and also "at the time of voting." We do not know, and no answer was given to me on the Second Reading, how the poll is going to be taken. We have had no explanation as to what kind of vote it is. It cannot be the ordinary kind of voting because otherwise, before coining up to the ballot box, the voter could not be asked whether he was content or not content to give this unofficial information. It seems very drastic power, and generally speaking, as was said on the Second Reading by more than one noble Lord, this Bill is a very drastic one and gives enormous powers. In fact it is a one-man Bill.
§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Strachie).
In order to save the Amendments in the name of Lord De La Warr I will put the question down to the words "may prescribe the information."
My Lords, this provision is put in the Bill purely in order to carry out the undertaking to give certain safeguards to the producers, and it was decided that the poll should be taken both as to the number of individual producers and according to the output of the producers. If that poll has got to 1082 be based on the output of the producers you must have some means of finding out what their output is, and also you must have some means of ascertaining that the description of the output given is accurate. Therefore you must, so long as you keep in the Bill a provision demanding a poll according to output, keep this provision in. As to the small point that the information is to be furnished "at the time of voting" I do not think that those words are very important, and I am quite prepared to consider dropping them at a later stage, if the noble Lord desires.
Do I understand that the noble Earl will be willing, if I withdraw my Amendment in its present form, to leave out the words "before the time of voting"?
No, the words "at the time of". If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment I will do it on Report.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (3) (c), after the first "information," to insert "relating to the regulated product, which is". The noble Earl said: This is merely an Amendment relating to the subsection which we have just been discussing, to eliminate the powers of inquisition relating to regulated product.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (5), before "this section," to insert "subsections (1) and (2) of" The noble Earl said: Subsection (5) of Clause 3 deprives producers of the vote if they are exempted from the scheme, but it was considered perhaps fair that, after the initiation of a scheme, if there was any question of another poll on the question of ratification or amendment, they should have a vote.
§ Information to be furnished for purposes of register.
§ (4) As soon as practicable after receiving such a list as aforesaid the board shall send by post to every person named in the list, and to every other person who the board have reason to believe is a producer, being a person who is not registered as a producer, a notice addressed to him at his last known address, stating the particulars required to be stated in the notice published under subsection (1) of this section together with a form of application for registration.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved to add to paragraph (d) of subsection (1) "but that no person so registered will, if it is decided as the result of the poll that the scheme shall not remain in force, incur any financial liability by reason of his registration." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is part of the general arrangement which we discussed on an earlier occasion. Do I understand that the noble Earl accepts?
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "person named in the list, and to every other person who the board have reason to believe is a producer, being a person who is not registered as a." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to secure that notice of a scheme shall be circulated to 1084 all producers and not merely to those in the list provided by the Minister of Agriculture, supplemented by the names of such other persons as the marketing board like to add. If it is intended that they shall be circularised there is no reason why the Act should not say so. As the subsection stands it would be perfectly easy for a large number of producers to be left off the register, without their having any redress whatever.
I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. I fully appreciate that it is a friendly one, but at the same time, as I have already pointed out, in view of the fact that this list may not in all cases be absolutely complete, if you have words in the -Bill that every producer shall receive notice you may thereby invalidate your scheme, and I think this Amendment would be dangerous. I hope it will not be insisted upon.
As the noble Earl is entirely opposed to this, and I only thought it would be a protection to the producers, perhaps he will consider it between now and Report and see whether it is possible to give any safeguard in this matter. I will not press the Amendment, but I hope the noble Earl will look into the matter further.
I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope, but I will consider it again. The real safeguard is that the board would not be so shortsighted as not to inform all its members of the projected scheme. The scheme would then obviously be an unwilling one, and would break down at a later stage.
§ Regulation of marketing and encouragement of co-operation, education and research.
§ Provided that except the in the case of a substitutional scheme the operation of all scheme made in pursuance of this section shall be suspended until the declaration of the result of the poll to be taken as here in before provided on the scheme shall remain in force.
The next two Amendments are drafting or consequential.
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "or any kind, variety or grade thereof, or such quantity thereof or of any kind, variety or grade thereof as may from time to time be determined by the board." The noble Earl said: If a board takes powers to sell the regulated product there is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, to compel them to deal with the whole of the regulated product. As the noble Earl knows, it is not possible for an agri- 1086 culturist always to ensure that his produce is of the very best quality, and it might be that a board would leave on the hands of producers the indifferent, second- or third-class stuff which the farmer produces, and which he cannot help producing. This Amendment is designed so far as possible to insist on the board dealing with the whole of the produce in a particular article and not with a part only. As the Bill stands at present they may deal with a part and leave the worst produce on a man's hands to dispose of as best he can.
I think I quite see the point of the Amendment. The trouble is that if we inserted these words in the Bill we might very seriously interfere with the powers of a board for dealing with or regulating a surplus, which is likely to be one of the main functions of the Board. Take a potato scheme. Our normal consumption in this country is about 3,750,000 tons a year. A production of 4,500,000 tons a year causes a glut. There are different ways with which to deal with that glut. If the producers had been levied in previous years one way might be for that glut to be bought up by the Board and kept off the market. Another way might be to say that certain grades should not be put on the market, but should be used for feeding purposes on the farm. I rather think it would be dangerous to insert this provision. I would remind the noble Earl, too, that this is a producers' board, run by producers. Therefore it is not likely that anything would be done that is contrary to their own interests, and I think they must assume responsibility for the powers they are given.
I quite see the noble Earl's point. I think, however, it is a matter of considerable importance. I will withdraw the Amendment and possibly will bring up something similar on the Report stage which will meet the objections of the noble Earl.
I should like to point out one thing to my noble friend. The producers might want to keep up the price of a product. Suppose a crop of potatoes which would only command a 1087 low price. They might prefer to keep it for their stock rather than have it accepted for sale at a very low price. I hope my noble friend will keep that in mind when he brings up a further Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in paragraph (c), after "producers," to insert "who may be willing to purchase or hire." The noble Earl said: The Bill as it stands rather implies that the board can constrain or oblige a producer to sell to them. The board not being a trading concern, I should think this is more in the nature of a drafting Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will accept it.
I have looked into this matter. It is perfectly clear in the Bill. There is no need for this Amendment, because it is quite clear in the Bill that the power is purely voluntary.
Perhaps I might be allowed to re-introduce the question on the Report stage?
Yes, but I can give the noble Earl that assurance.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (e) (ii), to leave out "the terms on which". The noble Viscount said: Of course the whole of this Bill reeks of bureaucracy, but I think that this subsection exceeds the limit. I suppose the expression "the terms on which" means the length of credit a man is to give to the people to whom he sells. I do not see what else it can be. If that is so I should have thought it was a very unnecessary thing to put in. He ought to be allowed to give what length of credit he likes.
I am not going to enter into a discussion with the noble Viscount on the definition of the word "bureaucracy" or "bureaucrat," but it is a point that is vital for the considera- 1088 tion of this Bill. I really would ask him whether he seriously thinks that the manager of a board appointed by a body of farmers corresponds with his idea of a bureaucrat. It does not correspond with that of the Government. These words "the terms on which" mean not only the question of the length of credit. It is difficult to define them except by examples, because every scheme may differ. But I can imagine, for instance, a cheese scheme laid down for the purpose of grading the butter fat content of that cheese. A board might lay down that eggs must be sold by weight or grade. All those things come into the terms on which they may be allowed to sell their product. Then again the power would permit a board to negotiate terms of sale with representatives of distributors or manufacturers, and to enforce the use of those terms on their own members in order to help them build up a market for their particular product. That is the purpose of these words, and it would really destroy the whole conception lying behind the regulating board—the most common type of board which we hope to see set up—if these words were left out.
Would the noble Earl consider inserting after "the terms on which" the words "excluding the length of credit to be given"?
I do not see any point in limiting the words in that way. I do not see why credit should not be given if it is wanted.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out paragraph (g). The noble Lord said: L think that here again too drastic powers are given to the Minister. What does this clause do? It empowers the board to send any person authorised by them in writing to act as their agent and to enter and inspect any part of the land or premises occupied by any registered producer. As your Lordships are aware, farmers very much dislike anyone interfering with their business. They still more dislike strangers coming on to their premises and enquiring how they carry on their work. The whole object of this clause, as I read it, is to enable the board to send any person, it might even be a neighbour or a competitor of the farmer, to inspect the premises. The farmer 1089 would dislike that all the more. There is no safeguard at all. It seems to me that the powers contained in this paragraph are much too drastic and if the noble Earl will not accept the Amendment as it stands, he may be able to suggest some way of limiting them. The language ought not to be left so vague that any person—and this is what I object to principally—may go in. I would also suggest to him that paragraph (h), which requires registered producers to furnish the board with estimates, returns, accounts and such other information relating to the regulated product as the board consider necessary for the operation of the scheme, appears to give the board sufficient power, without this inquisitorial investigation, which may be conducted, as I say, by a neighbour, a competitor, or even a person having a grudge against the farmer whose premises he is inspecting. I beg to move.
I do not know whether my noble friend has noticed that a little further down the page there is an Amendment in my name, which, while not proposing anything so drastic as leaving out the whole of paragraph (g) (which might be somewhat of a misfortune), limits the authority given or proposed to be given under that paragraph by saying that the producer himself must be specified in the authority. The Amendment, that is to say, proposes that there shall be not a roving commission but a specific commission operating only in the case of a producer who is thought to be contravening a scheme to the disadvantage of his co-operators. Possibly the noble Lord might think that would be sufficient to meet his case.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for reminding your Lordships of his Amendment because it gives me an opportunity of saying that the Government intend to accept that Amendment. I hope, therefore, that Lord Strachie will agree that it meets his point to a large extent.
Certainly, I will withdraw my Amendment, though I cannot say I am entirely satisfied with that of my noble friend Lord Hastings. If it is quite clear that only his Amendment 1090 will be accepted by the Government, I will not go any further in the matter.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in paragraph (g), after the first "scheme," to insert "on special cause shown to and approved in writing by the board." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is rather on all fours with Lord Hastings' Amendment. It is the National Union of Farmers in Scotland who particularly ask for it, and I hope the noble Earl will accept it. Its object is that the board in appointing a man shall appoint him for the special purpose and not appoint any farmer, who may, of course, be the farmer next door to the man whose premises are to be inspected. I beg to move.
As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment is really on all fours with that to be moved later by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, which we propose to accept.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph (g), after "producer," to insert "(being a producer specified in the authority)." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§ LORD SWINFEN moved, after paragraph (i) to insert: Provided that a board shall not acquire or occupy premises for the sale of regulated products or of commodities produced therefrom or for the slaughtering of cattle unless expressly authorised by a provision contained in the scheme.
§ The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I must ask your Lordships' kind indulgence as this is the first time I have spoken in your Lordships' House. There is nothing in this Amendment which in any way prohibits the board from setting up any establishment for the sale of their products or the slaughter 1091 of cattle, that they may think fit or find necessary. It is only intended to stop them from doing that without first giving due notice in the scheme itself. The object of the Amendment is partly to ensure that in cases where facilities have already been provided in the shape of markets or slaughter houses, due regard shall be had to those facilities before wide powers are conferred on a board to set up duplicate institutions probably at very great expense.
§ It is also intended to ensure to market owners and slaughter house owners a rather better opportunity of being heard under Clause 1 before the scheme comes into operation than the Bill gives them at the moment. There is no fear of any market in the technical sense being set up. I think I am right in saying that the technical meaning of a market is a franchise conferring a right to hold a concourse of buyers and sellers, and the term is also applied when that right is conferred by Act of Parliament. The point is that in such a market it is the public who buy and sell and not the market owner, and they are buying and selling on premises that do not belong to them but to the market owner. There is no fear of markets of that kind being set up under this Bill because there is, perhaps, ample protection afforded to market owners from being interfered with in that way by the law as it stands at the moment. What there is grave fear about in the minds of market owners and slaughter house owners throughout the country, is the establishment by the board of slaughter houses or premises not markets but analogous to markets without the board having been strictly empowered in the scheme itself to establish such places and, therefore, without there having been any opportunity under Clause 1 for the owners of markets and slaughter houses to object.
§ For instance, under Clause 5 a board would have power very probably to buy and sell. By paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule they must have power to hold land; I think that is one of the powers which are compulsory. That power to buy and sell coupled with the power to hold land seems to me, by implication alone, without anything being said in the scheme, to provide a board with power to set up a shop. As the setting 1092 up of a shop was never mentioned in the scheme itself a market owner who may be badly damaged by it has had no opportunity of objecting under Clause 1. Under that clause he can only object to the scheme and this is not part of the scheme. The only thing he can do is not to object before the scheme is in operation, but to complain of the effect after the scheme is in operation, either to an investigation committee under Clause 9 or to an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Committee under Clause 15.
§ It would be no good telling him "your legal rights are not infringed." This Bill is not taking anything away so far as I know from his legal rights. His legal rights, so far as I understand—and I say this with diffidence—are only against the setting up of a rival market in the technical sense of the word. The institution to sell their goods that has been set up by the board will not market in the technical sense of the word, because they will be selling their own goods on their own premises, and the legal rights of the market owner will not avail him. He can only complain under one of the later clauses.
§ The same thing applies to slaughter houses. Under Clause 5 a board will probably be empowered to adapt for sale. That power of adapting for sale coupled with the power to hold land seems to me to give the board all the authority necessary to set up a slaughter house. Suppose it is a cattle board. I do not know much about cattle, but one of the first things to adapt them for sale will probably be to slaughter them. There would have been nothing said in this scheme about setting up a slaughter house, and because it has not been in the scheme no objection could be made under Clause 1, and the slaughter house can be set up after the scheme has been put into operation by an implied power which has grown out of the Bill. There is no intention of stopping the slaughter houses from being erected if it should appear necessary to erect them, but only to say that they must not be erected without due notice being given. If your Lordships, as I pray you will, feel kindly disposed towards this Amendment it will give these market owners and slaughter house owners an opportunity of being heard before they are hurt, and 1093 not having to wait until after they are hurt. The amount of damage that can be done to them is very big, because bulk purchasing and bulk selling will almost certainly be one of the ways adopted to improve conditions generally.
§ They also have, under Clause 5 and the first paragraph of Clause 6, powers of an absolute monopoly. Let us suppose they are a cattle board, and they have power to buy all the cattle in their area and to sell all the cattle in their area. It means that anybody who wants to buy cattle from them and anybody who wants to sell cattle to them must go to the premises set up by the board; and the markets would be forsaken absolutely. Then, having done this, if after the scheme is in operation it occurs to them that it might be more convenient for them to set up a slaughter house, they have to ask for no more powers; they have ample powers in the Bill, and they can set up their slaughter house. When they have got all the cattle in their hands they then set up a slaughter house of their own, and the slaughter house trade is gone at one blow.
§ The only other thing I want to say—and I am sorry to have detained your Lordships—is that not this Amendment but an Amendment designed to have the same effect as this was proposed in another place, but, unfortunately, it was never voted upon. It was withdrawn, but it was withdrawn on the express assurance of the learned Solicitor-General who said: Certainly my view is that any provision of marketing facilities of this sort would have to be part of a scheme, and objection could be raised when the scheme was advertised. The difficulty about that is that there really is not anything in the Bill expressly supporting the learned Solicitor-General's view. I think the matter is sufficiently important to justify me in asking your Lordships to pass this Amendment in order to put into effect what is obviously the intention of the Government. They have obviously every intention that these people shall have a right to object at the court of inquiry. That has never been denied. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the interpretation of an Act of Parliament should not depend upon a statement made even by so learned a person as the Solicitor- 1094 General in the course of debate, and that it would be much better to have it in black and white in the Bill itself so that there really can be no doubt about it. Your Lordships will see that my Amendment is not intended to take away any powers, but is only intended to say that proper notice should be given. I beg to move.
§ EARL DE LA WARR rose.
The understanding was that we were to adjourn at four o'clock, and it is some time after that now. I notice from the seats of the Liberal and Socialist Benches the keen interest that they take in agricultural subjects. I gather that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is of some importance, and it might be as well to resume discussion upon it to-morrow.
I was going to say that it was already in the Bill, but if noble Lords wish it we will certainly adjourn.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has made an important contribution to the discussion, and it deserves more than a cursory reply.

References: § 1

§ 3
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V.