§ Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The Bill to which I am asking the House to give a Second Heading is really what I may call a machinery Bill. The question of agricultural policy, about which, I hope an announcement will be made later, does not arise on this Bill, which is really a machinery Bill, the object of which is to improve the organisation of the State for assisting agriculture—our oldest and greatest industry—and for the general reestablishment of rural life. It is perfectly true that for years and years agriculture was neglected by this House and by the country generally. Farmers were allowed to go as they pleased, or not to go at all except in the sense of leaving their holdings, and the general attitude of the country was that so long as we bought a sufficient amount of imported food from abroad it really did not matter whether the country went out of cultivation or not. We all know that for a long period agriculture was in a very poor condition, and we have heard of the terrible time in the 'eighties and nineties when so many farmers had to give up their holdings, and we know, too, that a general attitude of neglect was characteristic towards agriculture throughout the whole country.? Now the War has altered all that. We learned from the War the necessity of maintaining cultivation at home. We learned the great danger of being so entirely dependent as we wore on the foreign importation of food, and we appealed to the farmers, with a wonderful response, and for the first time for many years agriculture obtained that recognition that it ought always to have had at the hands of the State. Now there is a danger, as the immediate submarine menace is over, that agriculture may be allowed to slip back again, but, having regard especially to the difficulties of our foreign exchanges, to the importance of producing as much as we can at home in the way of food products and everything 268 else, to the fact that we are now importing vast amounts of food which could be produced at home, we realise still, as we did in the War, the importance of assisting agriculture.
The attitude of neglect which characterised the country as a whole towards agriculture reflected itself in the constitution of the Board of Agriculture when originally established. It was not regarded as a very important Department, It, was largely regarded as a sort of negative Department to administer certain Acts of Parliament, to do certain police duties, to look after such things as the muzzling of dogs—a most unpleasant duty with which I have had a great deal too much to do lately—or the stamping out of animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth, of which, unfortunately, we have a serious outbreak to-day. But the idea that the Board of Agriculture was to take an active part in a sort of reconstruction of agriculture, in assisting agriculture, in developing agriculture, and in looking after the possibilities of rural life, was entirely absent from the minds of those who originally formed the Board of Agriculture for England and Wales, and it is in order that we may remove that misconception of the position of agriculture and the duties of the Board that I am bringing in this Bill. We have a broader aspect of the position to-day, and the Board is expected to do very many things which no one expected them to do when it was first formed. We are supposed to look after and stimulate production. We control cultivation; we look after land settlement; we take cognisance of small holdings and allotments, two movements which have gone ahead tremendously of late, and which I desire to see pushed to the utmost extent. We attempt to assist in the reclamation of land which now cannot be cultivated, but which may be cultivated; we assist in land drainage, thereby increasing the production of parts of the country now water logged and producing very little; and last, but not least, we are endeavouring to take an active part in research and education—a most important matter. By gaining additional knowledge we can create far more production than existed before, and by disseminating that knowledge through administration, plots, farm institutes, and so forth, we can teach the cultivators of the soil in a manner which is likely to make them far more efficient in their work than they used to be. All these duties are thrown on the Board, 269 and what we want to do is to get all the local advice and all the assistance, both locally and centrally, that we can. As my late chief, Lord Ernle, used to say, we want to get our ears to the ground to ascertain what the best minds and the most practical people are saying and thinking about agriculture to assist us adequately to carry out the great duties which are now placed upon us. That is the object of our Bill—to improve our machinery, to give us the best advice, and to stimulate interest in agriculture and rural life generally from one end of the land to the other.
In the Bill we make two sets of provisions. I may call them, first of all, the local administrative provisions and the central advisory provisions. I will deal with the local administrative provisions first, because upon them all the rest depends. We propose that in every county there shall be set up a County Agricultural Committee, a standing statutory committee of the county council, formed under a scheme to be approved by the Board of Agriculture, and we propose that every matter of an agricultural character and the Acts of Parliament which county councils now administer relating to agriculture shall stand referred to this County Agricultural Committee. It will be, indeed, something like the local education authorities which exist to-day. Just as you have a local education authority which takes cognisance and administers all questions relating to education—and which, I think, has very largely Stimulated interest and enthusiasm for education—so, if this Bill is carried, there will be a local agricultural authority to stimulate interest in agriculture and to administer those Acts which relate to agriculture, and for which the councils are now responsible. The committees will be formed under schemes. The schemes must provide that at least a majority of the members are chosen by the county council, but the- Board will also nominate at least one-third, so that we may be closely in touch with the local agricultural authorities. Then there will be sub-committees. The county council may delegate any of its agricultural powers for executive action to the County Agricultural Authority, which may, in its turn, delegate any of its powers for action to the sub-committees. The powers delegated will be county council powers. For example, there is now under the county council a Diseases of Animals Committee with county council powers. A sub-com- 270 mittee of the local agricultural authority will take over those duties, and the powers may be delegated to them. Then there is in each county a Small Holdings and Allotments Committee at present—a very, important body. In future that body will be a sub-committee of the County Agricultural Committee, and the County Agricultural Committee will be allowed to delegate its powers to it.
4.0 P.M.
These Small Holdings Committees have undertaken a very big work. They are settling ex-Service men whom we desire to sea settled on small holdings, but at present their position is really anomalous. They are committees of the county councils, but for seven years they are not spending county council money — any, money that goes on the rates. They are spending exclusively the taxpayers' money, because the cost of small holdings—the annual deficit—is paid for out of the taxes, and at the end of seven years the cost of the small holdings will be written down to what is then a self-supporting basis and handed over to the county council. We think that is an anomalous position, because the Board, which represents the taxpayer, has no representation on these committees, and we propose under this Bill that in the ease not only of the County Agricultural Committees, but in the case also of all sub-committees to whom power is delegated, the Board shall have a right to nominate at least one-third of the members, thus in the case of the small holdings committees giving us that representation which is necessary in view of the fact that the money which is being expended is entirely the money of the taxpayers. There will be other sub-committees. For example, under the Corn Production Act a body which is now called the Agricultural Executive Committee of the county assumes the duties originally undertaken under the Defence of the Realm Act with respect to cultivation, in that case using powers which belong, not to the council, but to the Board. This Agricultural Executive Committee will now become a sub-committee of the County Agricultural Committee, and will exercise those powers derived from the Board under the Corn Production Act and taking directions from the Board of Agriculture. Similarly, the committees set up under the Land Drainage Acts of two years ago, again using the powers of the Board, will also become sub-committees of the County Agricultural Committees — although in 271 this case again taking its directions and powers from the Board of Agriculture itself. In fact, what we are aiming at is to sweep up all agricultural business, all agricultural administration, and all the work connected with agriculture into this one local county agricultural authority, which, we believe, will be of the greatest value in stimulating interest in agriculture, even in the most backward counties—I am glad to say most of the counties are not backward— and will stimulate that interest everywhere and assist the Board very greatly in the carrying out of its work.
That is the local plan. On that we proceed to build an edifice of what I may call the National Advisory plan. We propose to set up three bodies, first, a Council of Agriculture for England, secondly, a Council of Agriculture for Wales, and thirdly, a much smaller body called the Agricultural Advisory Committee. I would like to point out that we set up not only a Council for England but a separate one for Wales. We do that quite deliberately, because we think it is only right that so far as Wales goes it should have its own Council of Agriculture. There is already at the present time a body called the Welsh Agricultural Council. It is non-statutory; it is voluntary, but it has done very good work. I had the privilege only ten days ago of going to one of its meetings and I was greatly struck by the work which was being done. We think it only right to decentralise, so far as Wales goes, as much as ever we can, and that for several reasons. The conditions in Wales are very different from those in England. Wales contains a vast amount of land which is mountain and heather in much greater proportion than exists anywhere in England. Secondly, Wales is predominantly a grass country unlike the greater part of England. Thirdly, there is the Welsh national sentiment, which I think is a priceless possession and which we wish to encourage to the utmost of our ability. Therefore, so far as Wales goes we set up a separate Agricultural Council for the Principality. We have gone further, we have decentralised the Board's administration for Wales. We have lately set up a separate Welsh office at Aberystwyth which undertakes, subject to due limitations, all the Welsh business of the Board. I am pleased to think that the President 272 has asked me, as having some hereditary connection with the Principality, to be specially in charge of the business of the Welsh office.
I will speak now of the duties and composition of these Agricultural Councils. As regards their composition, each County Agricultural Committee will have a representative. As the Bill stands, each county borough which sets up an Agricultural Committee will also have a representative. There will also be representatives of the Agricultural Wages Board. Inasmuch as the Agricultural Wages Board is, in a sense—though it is not fully developed—a sort of Whitley Council of Agriculture, we think it most desirable that we should associate it with every movement towards the betterment of agriculture throughout the country. Lastly, the Board of Agriculture will have representatives, some of whom must be representatives of labour, women, horticulture and of educational research. In that way we hope we shall get a body representing all interested in agriculture which will meet together from time to time, the. duties of which will be to consider all matters of public interest relating to agriculture and to other rural industries. I am quite convinced from my experience of the Welsh Agriculture Council, which exists to-day on a non-statutory basis, that these meetings will be very valuable and that we shall be able to gather experience, advice and especially local knowledge which will be of real value to the Board in carrying out its work. One word about the composition. I have had some criticisms brought to my knowledge that the Bill as drafted gives undue prominence to what are called urban interests in contradistinction to rural interests. It has been pointed out that there are forty-eight councils in England, and each one of them has a member, and that there are sixty-eight county boroughs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Seventy-eight!"] No, sixty-seven if you exclude Monmouth, and Mon-mouth goes to Wales. If every county borough appointed an agricultural committee and each claimed a representative on the Agricultural Council in England the result would be that the rural elements would be outnumbered entirely by the urban. I think that is a just criticism, though it is very improbable that every county borough will appoint an agricultural committee. I think the number that will do so will be very small. 273 In any case, I admit the justice of the criticism in full, and when we reach the Committee stage I shall be prepared to move an Amendment limiting the number of borough representatives to twelve, so that the county element will be in no danger of being overshadowed as it exists in the Bill at the present time. The Welsh Agricultural Council, its composition and its duties, will be on precisely the same lines as the English, with the necessary changes.
We come to the smaller body, the Agricultural Advisory Committee. That will be a body on which both England and Wales will be represented. It will be a very much smaller body than the others. It will have altogether only about twelve members, of whom four will be representatives of the Council of Agriculture for England, whose members have been nominated by the agricultural committees. Four of the members of the same body will be nominated by the Board. Here again the Board will have to have regard to the interests of the workman, women and educational research. Two will be nominated by the Agricultural Wages Board and two will represent Wales. This smaller body will meet much more frequently. It will be a Statutory Advisory Committee to the President of the Board. I must lay stress on "advisory." We do not propose to give it any executive power, as we cannot divest ourselves of Ministerial responsibility. We must take our decision ourselves, and if we are given advice we must have the liberty of refusing to take that advice and be answerable to this House like any other Government Department. Therefore, it must be a purely advisory body, but as such, meeting at least four times a year and perhaps oftener, considering every important question which arises, considering all questions put before it by the President, giving advice itself on other questions upon which it may wish to give advice, and containing the best and most representative people of the industry in all its aspects, it will be of great value in helping to keep us in the straight path and assisting us in the work now put upon us by the country and this House.
There is one particular Clause to which I would call attention, because it will affect both councils and the advisory committee and also the county committees, although primarily it deals with the duty of the county committees—I refer to Clause 8 (4) which puts upon county com- 274 mittees, in the first instance, the duty of formulating schemes for the development of rural industries and social life in rural places. A great many of us hold that one of the difficulties of agriculture in connection with village life is the dullness and stagnation of country life. The want of life in the villages, the difficulty or stimulating corporate interests, and so on, is one of the worst effects of agriculture, because it draws the best of all classes to the towns and tends to leave only the worst to remain behind in the villages. If anything can be done to stimulate social life in the villages, to reawaken country life, to promote schemes of social improvement, and so forth, and the re-creation of those rural industries which used to cover this land, we hope it may be done through the operation of this Clause. At any rate, we put this duty upon the County Agricultural Committees, and that duty will devolve also in its turn upon the councils and upon the Advisory Committee of the Board of Agriculture.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill so far as agriculture is concerned. There are two other points to which I should like to refer. The first is in connection with Clause 9. That Clause contains a charge upon the State, and therefore cannot be proceeded without a Financial Resolution in this House. The effect of that would be technically to raise the Board up to a first-class office, and the actual effect would be to increase the salary of the President and incidentally also the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary. We do not propose to proceed with that Clause. After this Bill was introduced, another Bill was brought in raising not only the Board of Agriculture, but several other Departments, to first-class rank, but the reception which that Bill received was such that, though I cannot speak for the other Government offices, I very much doubt whether the Government intend to proceed with it. At fill events, we do not feel that we could proceed on our own, so to speak, with regard to the. Board of Agriculture. Although we fully intend to be a first-class office in every sense, both in the importance of the work and in the high character and ability of the occupants of the office, we do not intend to ask the House to give a single additional farthing to ourselves.
The Bill, as drafted, relates not only to agriculture, but also to fisheries. It has to be remembered that this Board is not only the Board of Agriculture for England 275 and Wales, but it is also the Board of Fisheries—a thing which is sometimes forgotten. We attach the greatest importance to that side of our work. We believe that there is a great development possible in the capture of fish, the marketing of fish, and the general production of fish as food, and we do not wish it to be understood that we in any way put on one side as unimportant the fishery side of our work. On the contrary, I earnestly hope before many months are gone that I may be in a position to bring into this House a much bigger Bill dealing generally with the policy of the Board as regards fisheries. In the meantime, this Bill simply proposes to set up a Fisheries Conference and a Fisheries Advisory Committee on all fours with the Agricultural Council and the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Since it was drafted, I have been in communication with the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, and they are very doubtful as to whether they wish to be included in the Bill or not They do not altogether like the composition of the Advisory Committee. It includes representatives of the local sea fisheries committee, which some people maintain have done their work, and ought possibly to be replaced by bodies more truly representative of the industry. I understand also that in all probability the attitude taken by those who best represent the fishery industry in this country in all its aspects will be that they would sooner be excluded from the Bill altogether. At this stage, I cannot say definitely precisely what line we are prepared to take except that I hope to meet representatives of the fishery industry again in the course of the next few days and before the Bill gets into Committee.
§ Mr. IRVINGMay I ask whether that committee includes representatives of the Sea Fisheries Board, or only of the Protection Association?
Sir A. BOSCAWENI was referring particularly to the Protection Association, but I have also been in communication with the local sea fisheries committee. I have been trying, as far as I have been able, to obtain the best advice that I could from every source and quarter that represents the industry, and I have no desire to do anything except that which is best for the industry as a whole. I shall give the fullest weight to any representations which may be made to me by 276 those who are qualified to speak for the industry outside, and also to any suggestions which may be made by hon. Members who are interested in the fishing industry. I am convinced, as I think is very likely to be the case, that our friends who represent the industry will prefer to be left out of this Bill altogether, and to have whatever councils or committees are set up under another Bill dealing with the industry as a whole, and if that is the general wish of the industry and it is generally advantageous, I shall not hesitate to omit these Clauses in order to meet the views of those who represent the industry. I cannot, however, make a definite statement to-day, nor would it be germane until we get into Committee. With these few observations, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I ask the House also to assist me to get it through as quickly as possible. Great and new duties are being put upon us. A sense of the great responsibility which we owe to the country is realised now by the people at last. Agriculture can be no longer neglected. We, as a, Board, want to get the best advice that we can, we want to stimulate local interest, and we want to receive information from people both practical and theoretical. It is because we believe that this Bill, although it does not go very far, would provide us with adequate machinery for carrying out our great duties that I hope the House will pass it into law as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. G. LAMBERTThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Board has introduced the Bill in a very lucid speech, and everyone will recognise the deep and intense interest that he takes in the subject which is before the House for discussion this afternoon. I regard all Bills setting up councils and committees with a certain amount of suspicion, considering the amount of Government control that we have had during the last four years. My hon. Friend has dissipated somewhat my fear that this Bill will go further to rivet Government control on to the industry of agriculture. For my part, I do not believe that the Government will make agriculture prosperous any more than any other industry. They have meddled with coal and with railways, and disaster has resulted. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will not mean too much meddling with agriculture. Any industry—I do not think this can. be too often emphasised—can only prosper by 277 the initiative and enterprise of those individuals who are engaged in it. My hon. Friend has stated that this is a Bill of machinery. It is a Bill to stimulate interest. Any Bill that is introduced into this House ought to be not so much to stimulate interest as production. Machinery is all very well, but where is your machinery going to carry you? What is the policy of the Board with regard to agriculture? We really ought to have that question answered before we set up the machinery to carry it into effect. I do not quarrel with the Bill, but it would be immensely more valuable if we could have the whole policy of the Government with regard to agriculture before us before attempting to set up the machinery.
My hon. Friend has explained with great lucidity that there are two councils to be set up in England to discuss questions of agriculture and that their expenses are to be paid by Parliament. According to Clause 2, each Council of Agriculture shall meet at least twice a year for the purpose of discussing matters of public interest relating to agriculture and other rural industries. We can always meet and discuss matters of public interest relating to agriculture. It does not require an Act of Parliament in order to enable us to discuss matters relating to agriculture. This Council of seventy-six, however, is to be set up and it will meet twice a year. The President of the Board is to have the casting vote. I do not envy him if he ever goes down to a Council of Agriculture and decides anything by his casting vote. It is a kind of Sanhedrin of agriculture. Well, I wish it well. Then there is a Welsh Council, of which my hon. Friend is to be the special patron. I do not know whether he is going to address it in Welsh or not. I do not know if that is one of the qualifications. We are also to have an Advisory Committee, and my hon. Friend has clearly told us that it is to be only advisory. It is not to take away any Ministerial responsibility. There are a large number of Committees now advising the Board of Agriculture. The Board has its own inspectorate, it has its agricultural correspondents, there is the Agricultural Wages Board, there is the Agricultural Commission now sitting, and upon whose decision apparently a very large proportion of the agricultural policy of the Government will demand; there is the Farmers' Union, and there is the Central 278 Chamber of Agriculture. There are a good many advisers of the Board of Agriculture at the present moment. This is. an experiment, and I wish it well. I do not attach the greatest possible importance to it, but still there it is.
My hon. Friend went on to deal with the organisation of the County Agricultural Committee, and I must say that to my mind he introduced a somewhat unfortunate illustration when he referred to the County Education Committee. I remember full well when the County Education Committee was set up in the country that many of us prophesied, and I am sorry to say that the prophecies; have only come too true, that there would be a very heavy increase in the Education Rate. I am one of those who look forward with fear and trembling to the precepts that the county councils will have to issue with regard to the rates. The rates, I think, will play a very important part in the agricultural and rural districts. By whom is the Committee going to be paid? Is it to be paid out of the rates or out of the taxes?
Sir A. BOSCAWENIt will carry out the functions now performed by the county councils under certain Acts of Parliament. All those duties relating to agriculture now carried out by the county councils will be done by this County Agricultural Committee.
§ Mr. LAMBERTSo long as it does not add to the rates, I am content. If it does, there will be a considerable amount of criticism. I observe that the county councils are to appoint at least a majority and that the Board is to appoint one-third. There are to be two sub-committees, one a Small Holdings Committee and the other a Diseases of Animals Committee. Do the Board anticipate that this will add to the officials which the county councils will have to appoint? I hope not, because one of the questions which we had at the last meeting of our county council was the raising of the salaries of all the staffs due to the high cost of living, and this question of rates is coming up very acutely. I hope, if this Committee is appointed, that it will go thoroughly into the question of the provision of small holdings, not only for ex-soldiers but also for agricultural labourers. It is to have that power, and to my mind one of the solutions of the agricultural problem is to attract more people and to place them on the land. A 279 good deal has been said about the limitation of the hours of agricultural labourers. My own impression is that it would be far better to induce the agricultural labourer to earn as much as he possibly can and then give him an opportunity of being able to go into a small farm of his own and raise his social position and status. That would be far and away the more preferable plan. Therefore, I hope that these committees will deal not only with ex-Service men but also with agricultural labourers, giving them some little hope in the future of becoming small farmers themselves. The expenses of the committees are to be paid. I do not object, but how will that affect the other county council committees? If you pay the county councillors on two subcommittees, the Diseases of Animals Committee and the Small Holdings Committee, how will it affect the other county councillors who have to attend the Agricultural Committee? I am not sure that you are not infringing a principle here which is of some importance with regard to local government. I am very glad that the proposal to increase the President's salary has been dropped. This is not the time for it. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to bow to the opinion of the House that Ministers' salaries should not be increased.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI only spoke in regard to this particular case. In any case the provisions of Clause 9 will have to be put into a more general Bill. All I said now, so far as this Bill is concerned, is that we do not propose to proceed with the provision at the present time; but I can give no pledge in regard to the general proposals of the larger Bill.
§ Mr. LAMBERTDoes the hon. Member speak for the Government or for the Board?
§ Mr. LAMBERTThen are we to understand that this proposal is to be withdrawn from this Bill and put into another. Bill?
Sir A. BOSCAWENWhen we had introduced this Bill containing this proposal, what I may call an omnibus Bill was brought in, including this proposal and others relating to other Government Departments. It therefore became necessary for us to withdraw the proposal from this Bill. I think I said when the other Bill 280 was brought forward that it got a generally favourable reception. I do not know whether or not the House will proceed with the proposal, but I can only give a pledge so far as I am concerned in regard to this particular Bill.
§ Mr. LAMBERTMy hon. Friend cannot commit the Government to a change of policy, but only to a change of procedure
§ Mr. LAMBERTWhen this proposal to raise Ministerial salaries came before the House it did not get a very favourable reception. Dealing with the general question, the Prime Minister, speaking on the 21st of October, the day before the Session opened, said, "You must have a settled policy with regard to agriculture." That, I think, is indisputable. The essential thing about that settled policy for agriculture must be based upon the future prices that agricultural products will bring to the producer. It is no use talking about stimulating interest or machinedy or anything else. What the farmer will look at is the price he is going to get for the products when he takes them to the market. That question is being discussed to-day by a Commission.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYNot on those lines!
§ Mr. LAMBERTI am not a member of that Commission, and, as my hon. Friend knows, that Commission is sitting with closed doors. As a fairly old Member of this House, I know full well that any policy for using the taxpayers' money to maintain agricultural prices will excite a very great deal of interest in the House and in the country. There fore, I should have liked this Commission to have given the fullest publicity to the whole of their proceedings. The cost of the production of agricultural products to-day is very high, and the agricultural policy of the Government must take that into account. Any agricultural policy passed by this House must have the general consent of the community, because you cannot ask farmers of others to engage in an entirely new system of husbandry without an adequate and almost a permanent guarantee. There is more nonsense written in the Press and sometimes more nonsense spoken in this House upon agriculture than upon any other one subject. Farmers cannot change the whole method of cultivation in a year or two. For the last thirty years land has been going down to 281 grass. As I understand it, one of the objects of this Bill is. to increase corn production in Great Britain. If that be so, there must be permanency. It cannot be done without. I hope that this Bill will be postponed when it has passed the Second Reading until the agricultural policy of the Government is announced. It is not a question of machinery, but the question of price that must dominate the whole agricultural situation in future.
§ Mr. F1TZROYThe general policy of the Government in regard to agriculture scarcely comes within the four corners of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has received the Bill somewhat grudgingly instead of giving it his wholehearted support. He complains of the control which is now exercised over agriculture by the Government. So far as I can see this Bill rather operates in the opposite direction. Instead of increasing control by the Government over agriculture it brings into the control of agriculture in this country representatives of the different agricultural counties. It decentralises the control from the central Government control and puts it into the hands of those who really represent agriculture. It appears to me that one ought to give this Bill a very warm welcome. It is very much overdue. I regard the suggestion that the Government ought to hold this Bill over until they are able to announce the whole of their agricultural policy as wrong. This Bill is more in the nature of a preliminary to the Government's agricultural policy, which I have full confidence, after the Prime Minister's speech, will be introduced at no very distant date. This Bill is a preliminary to this extent, that it is a proposal on behalf of the Government to put the Department which is responsible for the administration of agricultural policy in this country in order and on a new footing, and to bring it more into touch with agricultural feeling throughout the country. To that extent it must be a very necessary preliminary to the introduction of a general policy.
As regards the Bill itself, I assume that the Government propose to introduce some other Bill to continue the policy laid down in this Bill. This Bill to a certain extent is disappointing in that it does not give the Government the large increased powers which I should have liked to see them have in regard to the administration of many things affecting agriculture. The last thing we want to be is a spoon-fed Indus- 282 try. We are often accused of desiring protection. We do not want anything of the kind. We do not want Government Departments to exercise any policy towards agriculture of a spoon-feeding nature. What we want to do is to get a Government Department to whom we can look for assistance and for guidance in carrying on our business. When I say assistance and guidance, I mean in the nature of research work and so forth. So far as I can see, this Bill gives no additional power to the Agricultural Department of the Government to undertake greater research work than they do at present. That is one of the most important duties that a Government Department could possibly engage in. I think I am right in saying that this country suffers more than any of the other civilised countries of the world as regards the assistance that the Government Department of Agriculture has given towards the industry in the way of research work. Figures have been given as to what this country looses per annum from diseases of animals and plant diseases through want of proper knowledge, and assistance and instruction from, the Government in the way of treating these, diseases. The figure is enormous. A little wise expenditure in that direction in providing research in regard to diseases of animals, and the various diseases affecting corn and potatoes, which the Government ought to undertake, would producer results of incredible value. Up to now most of that work has been left to private enterprise, and although they have done it very well so far as they have been able, I do think the time has come when money, might be very wisely spent and most economically spent in that way. There would be a great saving to the country if work of that character was more largely undertaken by the Board.
There is another thing which the Bill does not do which it might do. There has been great complaint among agriculturists during the last four or five years that a great many things that affect their industry have been done by other Departments and not by the Board of Agriculture. Often questions were put to the late President of the Board of Agriculture to which he was compelled to give the answer that although it was a question deeply affecting agriculture it was not his fault, because the Government had taken certain action and the matter was dealt with 283 by another Government Department. Consequently, it is fitting to take advantage of an. opportunity such as this Bill affords to put in some Clause enabling them to give to the Board of Agriculture any duties now done by any Departments, and likewise to hand over to other Departments any duties of the Board of Agriculture that are not directly connected with agriculture or rural industries. That is what the Bill does not do I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider whether he cannot introduce into this Bill some means of carrying out the suggestions which are mentioned.
The Bill brings the Executive, through this Department, more closely into touch with representatives of agriculture throughout the country—that is to say, the councils which it is proposed to set up under this Bill. That is a great step in advance. Let us be quite sure when we appoint these councils that they shall be so constituted as really to represent agricultural opinion. I was very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce into the Committee stage some Amendment so as to make the representation of the county boroughs not so great as it is at the present time in the Bill. It would be ridiculous to have an agricultural council, a large proportion of whose members represented county boroughs as opposed to the districts represented by the county councils. At the same time, I attach extreme importance to the representatives of boroughs and urban districts being brought more directly into touch with agriculture than they have been, and although a majority of the councils should not be representative of the boroughs and urban districts, I hope that when he considers an Amendment as to the constitution of those councils he will take into consideration that these urban districts should have ample representation. I am certain this would be for the good of the urban districts, and will not do any harm to agriculture.
There was a great deal said, and rightly said, by the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) with regard to these agricultural committees set up under this Bill. These committees will have enormous powers. They will practically be responsible for the cultivation of the farms within their district, and as they will have these enormous powers I hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture will take the greatest pos- 284 sible care in looking into the scheme submitted to him by the councils. The machinery should go slowly at first. They should not be given too many powers at the outset before this scheme gets on its legs. Otherwise you may have disaster where you want simply to extend the cultivation of the soil. There is one other point on which probably I shall not find myself in agreement with most Members of the House. In the constitution of the councils we still maintain a bad system, which has been in use for the last two or three years. That is stereotyping, as it were, the different classes who would be represented on these councils. We have examples of it in the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Royal Commission. You have laid down that there shall be so many representatives of Labour and in the. same way representatives of employers.
In theory that may be a very good thing, and one might imagine that these two bodies would meet together to discuss things and try to find out the best solution of difficulties. But in practice—take the Wages Boards—instead of doing that, according to human nature, it must come to this: One party goes into the discussion trying to get as much as he can, and the other goes in trying to give as little as he can. It is a very bad system to put the different classes engaged in these industries into water-tight compartments, accentuating the fact that there are two classes, instead of trying to draw the classes much nearer together, so that the interests of one might be the interests of all. It would be much better if the Bill said that due regard should be given to the representation of such and such a class, instead of fixing the numbers to be put in to represent a particular class. I am sure that, when this Bill goes into Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be willing. to consider any reasonable Amendment brought forward to make it a better Bill. It is the first step in the Government policy as regards agriculture which was promised by the Prime Minister at the end of last month. As such, I give it my very warmest welcome, and I only hope that it will do as it is intended to do, and bring agriculture into closer touch, especially the Government Department of Agriculture, with the general community, and by that means be one step towards making the people all over the country realise the supreme importance of the agricultural industry to the community as a whole.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYLike my hon and gallant Friend who has just addressed the House, I wish to say a few words in commendation of this Bill. If this Bill becomes law, then for the first time in this country we shall have statutory bodies which are really representative of agricultural opinion. In particular I welcome the Clause which gives to the Advisory Committees powers not only of advice, but also powers of initiation in matters of policy concerning agriculture. There was, undoubtedly, one great blot on the Bill, and the lion. Gentleman has not entirely removed it. The value of the Bill is the means of arriving at agricultural opinion, and I can see no reason why the county boroughs should be represented on the Agricultural Committees at all. So far as agricultural opinion is concerned, whether that of farmers or workmen or landowners of agricultural property, the views of the townsman can have no weight, and by giving power to the borough inhabitants to take part in what is a purely rural matter you tend to make the powers of these committees less effective.
5.0 P.M.
Another matter requiring careful consideration is the composition of the councils and of the advisory committees. I particularly want to call attention to the extensive power of nomination by the Board of Agriculture that is taken under this Bill. The Council of Agriculture is to consist, first, of a member from each agricultural committee. In so far as rural counties are concerned they will number forty-eight members. I hope that the proposal as to borough committees will not be proceeded with, but, according to the President they will not number more than twelve. Then he proposes to have twelve members of the Agricultural Wages Board. The members of the Wages Board are nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture. The Wages Board consists of thirty-two members—sixteen representatives of employers and sixteen representatives of farm workers. Of each sixteen the President nominates himself, personally, no fewer than eight—that is to say, sixteen of the industry representatives are directly nominated by the President. The remainder of the Wages Board consists of seven persons who, I believe, represent the people outside the industry. Every one of these is nominated. So no fewer than twenty-three out of thirty-nine of the Wages Board are directly nominated by the President. Twelve of these have to be 286 nominated by the Wages Board from those representatives who have already been nominated by the President of the Board of Agriculture. Then we have, in addition to one member of each committee and twelve members of the Wages Board, twenty-four members nominated by the Board of Agriculture. So that if you do away, as I hope will be the case, with the twelve representatives of the boroughs, and then if you leave twelve members of the Wages Board, it would make a committee of sixty, of whom twenty-four would be nominated by the Board of Agriculture, that is to say, more than one-third of the Board will be nominated by the Board of Agriculture. Look again at the Advisory Committee. There are four members of the Council of Agriculture who have been nominated by the Board. Then you get two members of the Wages Board —and I have already shown that they are mainly nominated by the Board of Agriculture—and two members of the Council. In other words, you have one-third of the Advisory Committee directly nominated by the Board of Agriculture.
Look again at the Agricultural Committees. You find express power taken to provide that one-third of each Agricultural Committee throughout the country shall be directly appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture. For my part, I see no reason for the President of the Board of Agriculture taking to himself these very large powers of nomination. I should very much like to see the measure left on a much more democratic basis. I should like to see the members of these committees elected in some way or other by the locality, which will have much more knowledge of the capacity of particular persons than the President of the Board of Agriculture can have. Another point I will refer to is one to which attention has already been drawn, that is, Clause 8, wherein it states that the County Agricultural Committees shall formulate schemes for the development of rural industries and social life in rural places. For that purpose they are to spend the taxpayers' money, I gather, and not the ratepayers' money. These words are abstruse and very dangerous. Is it really intended that committees elected in this way are to run kinema shows, or that sort of thing, in our country villages, and that they have not to find the money for it? It seems to me a very risky thing to give these 287 committees this power. On the whole, I receive this Bill with great satisfaction so far as I am interestd in agriculture and know anything about it. It provides machinery for bringing the feeling of agriculturists to bear on the Board of Agriculture in an effectual way.
§ Mr. ROYCEOn the whole, I think I can re-echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) with regard to the character of the Bill, but I should like to join issue with him at once on the matter of representation. If Labour representation is not definitely stated in the Bill, I fail to see how Labour can make its voice heard in connection with the Councils to which he has referred.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI raise no objection at all to the representation of Labour.
§ Mr. ROYCEIn the matter of the selection of Committees, which I think is the same thing, if it were left an open question, Labour would get no representation at all. Then, with regard to the urban or county borough representation on the Council. I agree with the hon. Member for the Daventry Division (Captain Fitz-Roy) that a larger representation than twelve would be advisable, for the reason that it would bring urban views to agriculture and agricultural views to the urban representatives, and that could not fail to be of advantage. In industrial circles and on the part of the members among whom I sit, I think there is failure, perhaps, to realise the position of agriculture, and more especially the position of the agricultural labourer. At any rate, the representation that is now given seems to me to be quite satisfactory. I want to make only one remark in regard to Labour representation, and that is this: Except in the case of the Small Holdings Sub-committee, I find no special reference to payment for time lost and for travelling expenses on the part of Labour representatives. It ought to be definitely stated in every case where Labour representatives are called to sit on any of the boards that they shall receive payment for time lost and for travelling expenses; otherwise you will not get them there. It is an absolute necessity that this should not be left as a matter or consideration by the President of the Board of Agriculture or any section of the various councils.
There is another matter I should like to have some light upon. The Secretary 288 to the Board of Agriculture, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, made mention of the reclamation of land as one of the duties of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to know under whose direction the actual work of reclamation is to take place? I know that at the present time some initial steps are being taken to reclaim land. Along the shores of the Wash, more especially, there is ample opportunity for reclaiming very large tracts of land. Is it the intention of the Board of Agriculture to place the work of reclamation under the direction of the county council or the county agricultural committee, or will they delegate it to one of the numerous new boards now being brought into existence under the Land Drainage Act? So far as I am able to learn, the work that is already being done would hardly meet with my approval. I have a very high opinion of the attainments and character of the Board to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his opening remarks, but I am not sure that the Board is in a position to direct the reclamation of land from its offices in Whitehall. I hope I shall have some assurance that the inception of the plans for this work will be placed in the hands of some of the local authorities who have accurate knowledge of the circumstances and the uses to which the land can be put. I noted one remark by an hon. Member that the taxpayers' money may be used in connection with the Bill. I presume that in the administration of work of this description the expenditure of a certain sum of money will be necessary. He referred to the use of public money for the increase of agricultural produce. That might be necessary some day. But at present under the Corn Production Act— that is the only Act under which the proposed county agricultural authorities can take any action with regard to the cultivation of the land—there has been no payment of any description out of national money. Indeed, it has been a case of a very considerable contribution on the part of agriculture to the National Exchequer, inasmuch as if the same price had been paid for cereals that the Minister of Food had to pay abroad, it would have cost the country many millions more during the period that the Corn Production Act has been in existence. I am not at all in agreement with the too close limitation of representation from the county boroughs. They have a very considerable agricultural and horticultural 289 interest. I would urge on their behalf that a larger representation than twelve should be permitted, for in addition to any agricultural land they may have to administer they all have very considerable allotments, and most of them, I believe, now have Horticultural Committees set up by the Board of Agriculture. If the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be good enough to assure to that Labour will receive adequate remuneration for the time lost in the service of the various Boards, and if he will inform me how the reclamation of land is to be administered, I can assure him on behalf of the Labour party that they will assist him as far as possible to get the Bill through.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI think the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Second Beading of the Bill may congratulate himself on the reception which the Bill has had. On the agricultural side of it I would like to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friends behind me and by other Members. We thoroughly understand that this Bill is only machinery and that it would not be opportune to discuss the agricultural question generally upon it. The Bill proposes to set up three bodies: a council, an advisory body and County Agricultural Committees. The last is by far the most important. I say that because they are to do work of which we have already had some actual experience through the machinery which has been created under emergency circumstances during the War. The other two bodies are on their trial. I do not personally attach very much importance to the Agricultural Council which would be a body which would meet probably twice a year and where no doubt there would be discussions of considerable interest, though I do not think very much would come from it. The advisory body is much more important, and I think it is desirable that the Board of Agriculture should have available to it agricultural opinion in the more concentrated form of one advisory body. The County Agricultural Committees would have very important work to do and work which in past times could be done more effectively than now by landowners themselves. The landowner is no longer really in a position to bring that pressure which he might wish to bring on the occupier to cultivate his land satisfactorily. It is much better that pressure, if it is to be 290 applied, should come from a public source such as an Agricultural Committee than that it should have to be applied by the landowner. There are two reasons which may adversely affect the cultivation of the land and the County Agricultural Committees only deal with one of them. One is that the general policy of the country and of the community may result in farmers feeling that their chances of successful cultivation are so small that they cannot afford to cultivate the land as it should be cultivated. The other reason is that although the conditions are sufficiently favourable if people put their backs into it, particular individuals are slackers and do not use proper measures to cultivate the land. With the latter reason the county committee will and ought to be able to deal, but it would be rather difficult to decide which of the two causes really operates to the detriment of cultivation I hope the House will bear in mind that it is beyond the power of the Agricultural Committee to deal with the first of the two causes.
What I really rose to speak about was the question, as far as this Bill deals with it, of fisheries. No doubt something has been said in this Debate about fisheries, but one would hardly think, from the atmosphere in which the Bill is being discussed, that the importance of our fisheries was fully realised, though I suppose if there is one industry which proved its enormous value to the country, not only in peace but also in war, it is the fishing industry. If the agricultural industry has been neglected by the State, and I do not wish to use the word in an offensive sense, the fishing industry as a whole has received less attention. If the affairs of the agricultural industry are in confusion, certainly the administrative side of the fishing industry is in far greater confusion. The fishing industry is glad to see at last that it has had some notice from the Government, but it does not think, as far as I am in a position to express an opinion—and I have authority from the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association to express their views—that the creation of certain councils and advisory bodies as proposed under this Bill, which have no sanction whatever by prior consultation with the fishing industry, nor are they specially modelled on the organisation of the industry, are a real foundation upon which it will be proper to build. I was extremely glad to hear the Parliamentary 291 Secretary, in introducing this Bill, say that he hoped within a few months to introduce a Bill which would deal in a comprehensive manner with the fishing industry. I submit to him, on behalf of that industry, that this particular machinery Cannot, at any rate, be said to have the sanction of the industry or to be based on any full consideration of the best means of obtaining the opinion of the industry or organising it. I submit it would be far better to leave those Clauses out altogether and in the forthcoming Bill to cover both the machinery and the powers which the Department should have.
I do not think the House realises the enormous difficulties under which the deep-sea fishing industry finds itself to-day. It has no Department to which it can go to deal with the many difficulties with which it is constantly confronted. The Admiralty deal with policing, and the return of vessels under charter, and with wrecks and the clearing of the fishing grounds. The Board of Trade deal with survey, and the registration of fishing vessels, and certificates for skippers and mates and second hands, and with the signing on of crews and discipline, and with very important questions of fishery rights and many other matters. The Ministry of Transport deals with the transport and distribution of fish, and the Ministry of Health with pollution and the question of shell fish. When any representative of the different branches of this very important industry desires to lay any matter before the Government he has to go from one Department to another until the maze of confusion is perfectly hopeless. I hope that in the Bill to be introduced the relations of the fishing industry with the Government will be brought to one Department which will be responsible for it. It is quite obvious in such matters as transport and public health you cannot divorce, those Ministries from the regulation of those matters, but still I submit so far as they concern the fisheries, although you may not be able to give absolute power in that respect to the Fisheries Department, such powers should be given as far as possible to cover the needs of the fishing industry, and, in so far as the Department cannot have those powers, they should be made the official and statutory intermediary between the fishing interests and other Government Departments, so that those in the industry need only go to one Department to find what they require.
292 There has been a very insistent demand on the part of fishing interests that there should be a Minister of Fishing, but it is obvious that at the present time it would be undesirable to create any more Ministries than can possibly be avoided. That is a very strong feeling which I am sure everyone of us shares. Those interested in fisheries were very satisfied to hear the announcement made recently by the Leader of the House that certain steps had been taken within the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries which went some way in the desired direction, namely, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board has been detailed to take definite charge of all fishery questions in his Department. Therefore it is understood that all fishery matters will go to him and that the permanent secretary in charge of that part of the work will also report direct to him. This will, of course, be under the Noble Lord who is at the head of the Department and who will govern matters of policy. But so far as the fisheries are concerned there will be a different Department and a separate side with the Minister at the head responsible to Parliament, and who will answer fishery questions and will have some knowledge of them by contact with the fishing industry. That, the industry are glad to welcome as a step in the desired direction. They would, I am bound to say, prefer that the Minister responsible for fisheries should be a Cabinet Minister or have direct access to the Cabinet. The fishing industry is extraordinarily technical and when a Minister by long conferences has really got inside the particular questions which the industry desires to bring before the House and when the matter has to be discussed and settled by the Cabinet, it is rather unfortunate that those difficult technical questions which the Minister has mastered should have to go to the Cabinet through someone else who cannot with the same knowledge answer the questions which may have to be put to him.
I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary will do his utmost for the industry. I can assure him that the fishing industry will do its utmost to give all the advice and assistance in its power. I do ask him to lose no time in getting the draft of the Bill which he hopes to introduce. The matter is extremely urgent, and particularly from the international standpoint. The deep-sea fishing industry is most vitally affected by such matters as the 293 three-mile limit and other questions of the sort which I do not want to discuss now and only refer to in order to point out that at this particular time international questions are very much in the melting pot, and while international agreements are in a liquid form the opportunity which this industry desires to obtain for further consideration may never recur. At present the Government Department which has to deal with international question on behalf of the fisheries, has no knowledge whatever of fishery questions, and it is impossible that those questions can be satisfactorily dealt with without actual technical knowledge. From that point of view alone it is of the first importance that my hon. Friend should confer with the responsible heads of the fishing industry and ascertain from them what those important questions are and how they desire them to be dealt with, and those representatives should have the opportunity of putting that opinion forward to the Government as a whole, and the Government should lose no time in acting upon it. If this opportunity is lost and more months are allowed to go by before the Government has even informed itself of the international requirements of the fishing industry and has taken some steps to give effect to them, I am afraid that the loss to this country and the fishing industry may be most vitally serious.
The fishing industry brings enormous wealth to this country. There is no rent to pay for the sea. When fish are brought into this country they are different from any other import. If you see an import of timber brought into this country you do not know what proportion of the value of that timber has to be paid overseas to the country where it was grown, but if you bring a cargo of fish from the North Sea or the Atlantic into a British port, there is nothing to pay to anybody; you have the whole of that fish as a benefit to this country, and every penny of its value inures to the country, as a whole, to the men who catch it arid the men who eat it. Under the present organisation, the action of the State enters more and more into our daily life. I hope we may get rid of a good deal of the War interference, but I am afraid we shall have to have more State interference after the War than we had before the War, and it is, therefore, of the greatest importance that the Government wad the State, in relation to the fishing industry, should have as much knowledge 294 as possible and should take care to adapt their machinery to the needs of that industry and of our population who depend upon cheap fish, because there is no food which is more valuable to those with small incomes than cheap fish, which depends upon the organisation of the industry, and, above all, upon cheap transport. If all these points are dealt with — and I hope they will be—in a Bill which my hon. Friend will introduce, then he will have, I am sure, the support of the whole industry, both in framing a Bill and in carrying it through this House. In view of what I have said, I hope he will consent to withdraw this Clause from this Bill, because these councils and the Committees which the Bill proposes to set up are not founded in any way upon the organisation of the fishing industry. There are not, as in the agricultural Clauses, any statutory bodies which really represent the fishing industry. There are certainly the local fisheries committees, but they have nothing whatever to do with deep-sea fishing, and deep-sea fishing is about 95 per cent, of importance in the whole industry, and therefore, though the local fisheries committees have carried out certain duties with considerable advantage in certain cases, it is ludicrous to think that bodies of that kind should constitute a large proportion of the representation of the fishing industry of this country. Therefore; I hope my hon. Friend will give the matter consideration and withdraw this Clause, and deal with the matter in a new Bill
§ Mr. IRVINGA great deal of what I wanted to say has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said that the Department were fully aware of the importance of the fishing industry. There has been a suspicion amongst those connected with the industry that the Department have not realised that fact, and if hon. Members will look at this Bill and see the amount of importance that is given to the fishing industry as indicative of the Departments' idea of its importance, I do not think that suspicion has been dissolved. I think on the whole it has been rather increased. I suppose we all of us know that we are some day or other to depart this earth, whether to a heavenly or any other kind of sphere is not to be ascertained at present, but really it does not impress 295 itself upon us that that is the fact. We most of us go on anticipating in our acts and thoughts that we are living for ever, and it is that lack of impression, at any rate, of knowledge on the mind of the Department that I want to try and help dispel. I happen to be a member, and have been for some years, of one of those ludicrous bodies that the representative of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association referred to a moment or two ago, and hon. Members will note that in introducing the Bill the hon. Member referred to these bodies in such a way as to indicate that in his mind they are worth very little consideration. Indeed, ho said that in the opinion of some folk— he did not say whether he agreed with that opinion—they are about played out. In my opinion, they ought to be about to be played in, and if the hon. Member had paid consideration to the representations of these fisheries boards to a very much greater degree than he has done in the past it would have been better for the industry. Quite obviously he is not prepared to do so, because hon. Members will recollect that whilst speaking of representative bodies, he spoke of the heads of the fishing industry being called into consultation and very largely indicated that he meant the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, who, so far as I know, have constituted themselves the heads of the industry, and so far as I have any knowledge at all are mostly representative of the steam trawling industry, which is in the main an organisation in the interests of the capitalist side of the industry; huge companies who employ men for wages and who do not in any sense represent that body of the fishing industry, the individual fishermen, who, owning their own boats and fishing the sea, have been the very foundation of most of that grit and determination which have served this country so well during the War. I would submit that the interest of this country demands, not the extension of the steam trawling and company owning part of the business, who are able to take care of themselves, but that the Department should pay very much more attention to the smaller fishermen owning their own boats, and, by the possession of their boats and fishing on their own behalf and not for wages, doing more to build up a larger army of men who in any future 296 difficulty may be at the call of the nation whenever they are required. If hon. Members notice again the estimate of the fishing side of this Bill placed upon it by the Department, they will notice that, whilst the councils to be set up for the agricultural side are specifically set out in detail, if they will turn to the one Clause dealing with the setting up of any sort of council for the fishing industry, they will see that it is just about as vague and as nebulous as it can possibly be. There is no specification at all as to what that council is to be, except that it shall be constituted in the manner prescribed by the Regulations to be made by the Board. Those. Regulations are not indicated in any way, and therefore may be good, bad, or indifferent, when we come to view them.
I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman opposite when I say that the treatment of the fishery side of this question as proposed in this Bill is of such a character as to warrant me in asking for its complete withdrawal. It is in no sense a recognition, not even in a temporary sense anything like an adequate recognition, of what the fishing industry stands for. The mind that could conceive that the setting up of a Fisheries Department, with a Minister of State at its head, is going to cost the country anything has got very little conception of the possibilities of the fishing industry at all. If you had such a Department, not over-weighted and over-awed by the agricultural side under a joint Board as exists today, but with a capable, responsible Minister at its head, whose sole duty it was to develop these fisheries to the greatest possible extent, the great asset that the fishing industry to-day is to this nation would be a mere bagatelle to what it might be in the immediate future, and the cost would be as nothing to the benefit which the nation would gain as a whole. I would, again, on behalf of these ridiculous boards that are nearly, in some people's opinion, played out, like to say a word or two from their point of view. They, at any rate, are not constituted to safeguard the interests of the steam-trawling companies, but where the antagonism comes in is, that although these boards do not regulate the deep-sea fishing, they do regulate fishing upon the-whole to such a degree that the huge-steam-trawling companies view these boards as a nuisance, because in the interests of making profit to-day irrespec- 297 tive of the future, but for these boards there would be scarcely any fishing industry left in this country for the hon. Gentleman or anybody else to supervise in future, and it is that antagonism born of the interests of private profit which has induced these people, so far as they have been able to do it, to belittle the work of the sea fisheries boards. From my own personal experience, I know —I am not merely asserting opinions—that in the scientific officials and the superintendents of some of our sea fisheries boards you have to-day men in the possession of knowledge and of capacity, dealing not merely with inshore fishing but with deep-sea fishing too, that no other body of officials in this country possess, not even the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries itself, and I say that it is suicidal on the part of any Department to try in any sense to belittle organised bodies who are representative in the sense that every man has been elected by various town councils, and urban, district councils, and associated bodies of fishermen to come direct to the various meetings to consult and, in so far as their limited powers allow, to further the industry of fishing as a whole. I would appeal to the lion. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause and introduce another Bill, but if on the other hand he thinks that not the best policy, I hope he will not only consult the Sea Fisheries Protection Association, but that he will give equal, if not superior, attention to these organised and representative bodies called the sea fisheries boards of this country.
§ Mr. ACLANDI should like to intervene now, because I also want to say a word or two about the fisheries, I suppose if we were really starting again to organise Government Departments, we should have perhaps four or five great Ministries covering a distinct field of subjects, such as production, transport, defence, education, and so on, and we should have either subordinate Departments or subordinate Ministries, like the Ministries of Agriculture and Mines, under a great Department of Production, but, undoubtedly, we are losing, and shall continue to lose, enormously in this country through having fisheries, for instance, divided between three authorities—England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. If the tendency goes further, no doubt Wales will have a separate Department of Fisheries if it gets the self-government it desires. I suppose 298 the difficulty is that you cannot get back to first principles. It is not popular to talk about first principles in this country, because it is supposed to suggest German sympathies, and certainly it is difficult to get back when you have taken a step in devolution. I believe agriculture and fisheries probably first came to be grouped together because they were functions of the Privy Council, and were a sort of remnant that had not been allotted to any other Department. I think under one of Mr. Gladstone's Administrations a Department of Agriculture was set up and they said, "Let us put the fisheries on to the Department of Agriculture." Then you get, some years later, a demand from Scotland for a separate administration for agriculture, and although I do not believe there was such a demand for a separate administration for fisheries, agriculture and fisheries had then somehow got joined together, and so they were combined in that case. It is a handicap, and I do not suppose you can get back, so there it is.
Fisheries are one of the services in which scientific investigation and research can do almost more than in any other Department of our national life. Questions connected with the North Sea, the Channel, and the Atlantic for that matter, are extraordinarily important in the long run to fishermen, and it would be of the greatest value if these questions could be handled, as they cannot now be, by some authority representing Great Britain as a whole, and, as my right hon. Friend says, the Admiralty is concerned, the Board of Trade is concerned, and the Foreign Office —as I believe he also suggested—is also concerned in the matter. When I was Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office I came up again and again against cases in trying to negotiate difficulties with the three-mile limit. Foreign countries were very much handicapped because the fisheries here were divided under three different authorities. And when one thinks how much research has got to depend on the day-to-day observations and intelligence of the fisherman who will record in his intelligent way what his experience is in regard to his catch and his grounds; when you think for a moment of that great herring fleet, moving, as it does every year from the coast of Scotland right round England and to our southern coast, it really is an absurdity that you should have this great fleet of herring boats coming from Scottish ports, like 299 Banff, Montrose, and Kirkcaldy, under one fishing department, and making reports, which are the raw material of scientific research, and then, as they come down the coast, they have to be sent into the port of Scarborough and other English ports under a different fishing authority, carrying on perfectly different systems of investigation and research, and so on. I ventured to give evidence once before Lord Selborne's Committee on Agriculture, and suggested that if it were not too late to go back, all the functions connected with fisheries might still be collected together and fisheries made a sub-Department of the Admiralty, which I think, at any rate, is a strong Department, and would be more active in seeing that fisheries got the just attention which they deserve from the State. Therefore, I think all are agreed with the Minister when, he announced his intention of not dealing with fisheries in the Bill, and desired to give the matter, which is a very difficult one, fuller consideration before legislating.
To pass to agriculture, I suppose I am the only person in this House who will say frankly that he is sorry that nothing is going to be done with regard to the salaries to be attached to the Board of Agriculture. I know that high expenditure, quite rightly, is unpopular now, but you are leaving things with regard to these Ministers' salaries in an extraordinarily anomalous position. The Home Office, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board each carries £5,000 a year for its Minister, whereas the heads of the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture still carry salaries of £2,000. That is not a satisfactory position. I should like to see something in the nature of pooling, but, at all events, no one can say that the relative importance of Education and Agriculture, compared with the other Offices I have mentioned, is to be measured by the difference in salary. It is all very well to say that any first-class man will always be glad to take an office of State without regard to salary, and I think that is true, but undoubtedly in the public eye, to some extent, the importance of a Department is measured by the salary that is attached to it, and there have been instances where Ministers have regarded such an important Department as the Board of Education simply as a place of passage in order to 300 lead on to something which was considered of first-class importance. In the long run that sort of disparity results in these two extraordinarily important services of Agriculture and Education being somehow regarded as of less importance than other Government Departments. I should not be surprised, of course, if Clause 9 were withdrawn, for this Government seems to me a Government of opportunism tempered by funk, and it may be wise of them to withdraw this Clause, though in the long run I think it would be a mistake.
I do not expect very much from these agricultural councils. I do not expect very much good from any deliberative and executive body of seventy-six. It is too big for any real business. We all know what will happen. All the different bodies that are concerned with agriculture will be asked to nominate representatives-for the consideration of the President. They will all nominate their senior Vice-President, ex-President, and so on—all people really ten years out of touch with the subject when nominated, and who will rapidly become twenty years out of touch. We shall have these two meetings a year, and a clever President of the Board of Agriculture will be able to arrange his agenda so as to prevent, if he chooses, any useful business being done. You have always some little red herring, and when the whole thing has to be put into one day's deliberation, you can entirely prevent some other thing coming on you do not wish to have discussed. The most important point of the Bill is that dealing with these Agricultural Committees in the counties. Those are going to be, of course, the outward and visible sign in county organisation of the fact that the State does intend to undertake and carry through more responsible and more active work in the organisation of agriculture than in the past. It wants to have—and I think absolutely rightly—real responsible committees in our counties with whom it may co-operate, and with whom it may correspond, and who will be the local counterpart of the activities at headquarters. I am very sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on this bench who thought the fanners would not be helped by anything but a guarantee of prices, and then leave them alone. I do think there is at the present time, particularly, a tremendous deal to be done in helping farmers all over the country by 301 Active efficient work—call it machinery if you like—by the county councils and the Government Department.
6.0 P.M.
It I may give an illustration, I happened to have been at home lately, and to have been trying to get a little move on by putting some old orchards in Devonshire into order, and trying to buy apple trees of good sorts to replace the wretched old stuff we have got. I found nearly all the local growers of apples still going on buying varieties with beautiful names, such as Fair Maid of Devon, which are all very well in Devonshire, but are absolutely no use whatever when trying to organise the sale of apples to meet the great central markets on which you must rely for your serious demand if you really want to run apple-growing as a business. I found it was quite difficult to get standard sorts which are known and bought, and enjoy a standard quotation, and so on, like Newton Wonder, Bramley's Seedling, Lane's Prince Albert, Rival, and others, and they know nothing about a coming apple like the Ollison's Orange. If I may give another illustration, I occupied this morning as chairman of what is called the Allotments Executive Committee of the Agricultural Organisation Society, which is not a Government Department, but does receive a Government Grant for the work it does in organising agriculture. We had to look through the reports of the fourteen —I think the number was—allotment organisers all over the country who are trying to organise co-operative allotment societies and to put them on a firm basis. The work that was being done by these men in every instance, explaining to clerks of local councils what the powers of those councils are under this new allotment charter which this House has passed this year in the Lands Acquisition Bill, is admirable, and is having effect in getting more land taken up for allotments, and in helping towards an understanding between rural farmers' societies and urban allotment societies, who often do not understand each other's point of view. I cannot at all agree with the idea that all that agriculture needs is fixed prices and no interference. I believe the work that the State is doing, and will be very much helped to do as the county council develop these Agricultural Committees, is of quite extraordinary value to the country. This Bill has a political value too. We shall come up, as the Minister in charge of the Bill said, to another question very soon, 302 the question of guaranteed minimum prices for agricultural produce. The Prime Minister [...] soared up at last to that. In his address the other day he said that that would be his policy. I think that will be carried out, for the Government can have its way in this matter as in every other if they stick to their guns. There are, however, three sets of people in this matter. There are the people who want guaranteed minimum prices, and no interference. There are other people who do mot want any guaranteed minimum prices, but who are perfectly willing to allow the agricultural industry to rip, and be exposed to the full blast of foreign competition as before the War. And there are other people who are only willing to give these guarantees to agriculture if there is visibly at work, if this part of our local and national life, and agricultural administration shows, and makes absolutely certain, that the farmers of this country are giving the best return possible in their methods of production, trading and organisation, and in the advantage they take of educational research, to the State for the money which is going to come out of the taxpayer's pocket every year. No doubt under a Bill which will be introduced there will be a guarantee of minimum prices for what agriculturists produce. Unless a Bill of this kind, or something of the kind, was to be passed, and unless it was certain that the Board of Agriculture was going to go ahead in agricultural administration, and so going to set up in the counties really active committees, who would be the local administrative bodies carrying out its work, it will be found when the time comes, that these guaranteed minimum prices are far more difficult to get established than otherwise it would be. It is only if the State is determined to obtain from the agriculturist a real return—I think that this Bill is an outward sign of that— that those guaranteed prices can hope to remain, however much they may be set up now as a permanent part of our country's organisation. Therefore, I think the Government are very well-advised indeed in preparation for a policy of guaranteed minimum prices to establish the necessary machinery for a really progressive agricultural administration which I believe they contemplate.
§ Major WHELERI do not share the gloomy views of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as to what may be 303 the utility, or lack of it, of these Agricultural Councils, but I am quite certain of one thing, that their utility or otherwise will be based entirely on the fact as to whether the Agricultural Committees as a whole hold the confidence of the public. If the representatives enjoy general confidence, then the Bill will, I believe, become a useful, working, practical measure. All I want now to say is this, while with others welcoming the introduction of this Bill, and also realising the feeling of gratification at the concession made with reference to the reduction of numbers on the council, and leaving the question of the county boroughs, I would urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when we come to the Committee stage, to give his consideration — I am sure lie will — to the views put forward (which are being put forward by many agricultural associations) which favour, as he already knows, the proposals put forward by the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons, especially with reference to the details of the machinery of this Bill. I hope when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill he will have an entirely open mind as to the composition of these councils, arid will realise what many agricultural bodies feel. The Central Chamber of Agriculture to-day has passed a resolution, that, while welcoming the general policy of the Bill, and the machinery set up, it expresses the opinion that the proposals put forward by the House of Commons Agricultural Committee were more desirable in the true interests of agriculture. That is really the only point. I hope he will bear it carefully in mind. While we who are here are giving him united support in the introduction of the Bill we shall feel perfectly free in Committee to bring forward proposals having reference to the reorganisation and rearranging of the machinery under which these councils and county committees are going to work. I presume these councils will sit in public. Their discussion and decisions will be open to the general agricultural community, because, as I said, what we do want more than anything else is confidence. We all want to know, as agriculturists, what is going on. If we do not get that all these councils will be viewed, as in the past, with certain suspicion, and will be looked upon more as places for taking theoretical ideas more than practical points, which every agri- 304 culturist knows are so vital at the present time. When we come to the Committee stage I will urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give full consideration to the many proposals which will be put forward with reference to the alteration and composition of these various committees. He will realise, I trust, that they are put forward after careful thought by practical agriculturists who desire to see this measure a most practical and useful measure.
§ Major LANE-FOXBefore I come to the Bill itself I want just to make reference to a remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), when he said that the value of the committees set up would be modified by the fact that under them we should get a guarantee that any subsidy going to agriculture would be properly discussed. I do not want to go out from an authority like the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion that any subsidy is being paid, apart from the guaranteed price. There are lots of people who know less about it than does the right hon. Gentleman, and they may be influenced by what he says, But, as the House knows, at this moment the Government are buying wheat from foreign countries at a higher rate than what they are paying for it in this country.
§ Mr. ACLANDI quite agree, of course, that at present we make nothing out of the guarantee. I was referring to legislation foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his recent speech.
§ Major LANE-FOXI quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means, but I did not want any diversion to be created in connection with this matter. As regards this Bill, the criticism made by the first speaker from these benches was that it would merely increase muddling Government control, which the farmers do not like. It seems to me the effect of the Bill will be to perpetuate that particular form of control which is an advantage to the farmer, and which the greater bulk of the farmers appreciate. The control which the farmer objects to is that exercised by the Food Controller, by the Controller who commandeers his hay, the control which says when he has or has not to thresh, and which tells him when he desires to thresh that he cannot get the coal. All these outside controls by people who do not understand the industry, and are not particularly interested in making it a success, the farmer objects to, and very naturally. 305 But the control, through these committees, I am sure, all the best and most advanced farmers realise is of great value to the industry. Nothing has been more remarkable throughout the War than the general. attitude of farmers towards this sort of control, which they have learned is good, and has helped to foster the general feeling that bad farming and indifferent attention to matters that make farming good are really a crime and very much against the interests of the industry. I am quite certain that the feeling now among agriculturists is very different to what it was before the War. There is a far more extended feeling that it is absolutely vital in the interests of the country that every effort should be made by the farming community to farm on the highest possible level. I hope all that will be helped by this Bill.
It is easy to say it is a small Bill, and of no great importance. In a way that may be so, but let us be careful. It may be that this Bill may not make the Board of Agriculture a very live body or of necessity give it new powers, but at any rate it will establish a very useful connection between agriculturists and the powers-that-be, and so far from increasing the control of London over the local agriculturists it will act rather in the opposite direction, and give the local agriculturists a better chance of making their views known. I anticipate useful results from this Bill. The points so far made against it are mainly Committee points. Personally, I object to the undue representation of the Agricultural Wages Board. I do not think they are essentially a very practical body as regards agriculture. I would like to put some of them on to a small holding and see what the result was—see whether their cultivation would come up to the standard of the county committee. I very much doubt it. But what we particularly want on these committees to assist in working the Bill is "a matter-of-fact agricultural knowledge." I should like to have these words put in as some guarantee to the farming community that these bodies to be set up are not so-called theorists and people like that whom the farmer naturally distrusts, and who are of but little use, but men who understand the industry and who are able to give practical and, it may be, valuable assistance. I only hope that prospective activities will work out in increasing the amenities of rural life, and that these will be on practical lines. I hope, with one of the speakers, that the 306 idea of subsidising the cinema in the interests of agriculture is one that will be avoided. We all want to make agricultural life more attractive, and happier and better, and I hope in this direction the Bill will be useful, as well as in all the other directions indicated by those who have spoken.
§ Lieut.-Colonel WE1GALLOn behalf of the County Agricultural Committees—one speaker gave unqualified approval to the work they have done in the country and are now doing—I most heartily welcome the Bill now before us. We look forward to an increased sphere of activity when the committees become statutory bodies carrying out the whole of the agricultural administration in the counties. I disagree from my right hon. Friend opposite that the councils that are to be set up under this Bill will, of necessity, contribute any useful work. I was extremely sorry to hear the account just given of Ministerial activities, and I must say that I have a very much higher view of them, and in spite of what has been said I still have a much higher opinion of the way Ministerial administrative duties are carried out. We are all agreed that in the counties you must have your live County Committee, but nobody seems to have provided the essential connecting link between the Board of Agriculture and those counties. I see no other alternative myself to the agricultural counties proposed under this Bill, but we must have a true mirror of agricultural opinion throughout the country on the Council. I do not want the House to imagine that the federation of County Agricultural Committees, the National Farmers Union, the Central Land Association or the Central Chamber of Commerce, all of them representative bodies in the country, approve of the constitution of the Council as laid down in the Government Bill, but they have all approved of the constitution which has been laid down by the Agricultural Committee of this House in a measure which my hon. Friend knows has been in the hands of his predecessor.
I would urge for serious consideration the representation of all these associations. We might take, say, a couple of members of every Agricultural Committee in every administrative county to form the basis of the Agricultural Council. I cannot help thinking that that system would give you a more real representative agricultural opinion than the Government proposal, and it gets over the difficulty which 307 has been raised as to the representation of county boroughs. There is one school of thought which says that county boroughs have nothing to do with our rural life or the agricultural industry, while another school holds the opinion which is shared by the Government, which gives them twelve representatives, and it seems to me that both those schools of thought are wrong. For the reasons that have already been given it is essential that you should have some urban element or some urban point of view in order that the agricultural point of view and the urban point of view can be consolidated and assimilated for the good of all.
If you are going to accept that theory I do not think you can include in such a large council such a small number of those representatives I have mentioned. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some more representative method assimilating urban districts in a way the Government proposal cannot hope to do. Whilst all these great organisations, some for whom I can speak as a representative, have expressed their views on this proposal, all of them give a hearty support to the general principle of the Bill, but at the same time they urge that in Committee the constitution of these councils and committees should be radically altered. I was astonished that when my hon. Friend was telling the House of the enormous amount of good that has been done by the National Council to which he refers he forgot to mention the National Agricultural Council in this country. I am sure that was an omission which was unintentional, and I agree with him that the two great national agricultural councils now in existence are purely voluntary, and it is possible that when these councils are made statutory it will be very much easier for future Ministers coming down to this House to feel that they have behind them the united and authoritative support of the whole industry. I think the Agricultural Council should be so constituted as to be truly representative of every single agricultural interest engaged in the industry, and on behalf of the County Agricultural Committee I give my hearty support to this Bill.
§ Mr. W1GNALLWith regard to the general principles of this Bill I think we can all give it a hearty welcome, because it will provide a separate machinery which will be beneficial to the agricultural industry of this country. Through being de- 308 tained with other work this evening I was prevented from hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech who represents the Government, but I have read the Bill with a great deal of interest, and I was led to believe that it would contain some important and ample provisions for dealing with the fishery industry of this country. I read the Bill through very carefully, and I wondered when I was going to come to the fish section, and I find it is almost like a little sprat hidden away in Schedule 15. The Bill seems to dispose of the whole of this question in six or seven lines, although it certainly gives us some promise that something is going to be done, Rules are to be set up and committees arc to be called into existence, and all these things are promised, but there is not much finality about them. Much has been done for agriculture during the last few years and great interest has been taken in this question, and I believe that a great deal of good will result to agriculture.
Let us take our mind back over any period you like during the War or previous to it, or even to the later stages. It is now twelve months since the Armistice, and we are glad to know that, and I hope none of us will ever see the horrors of another war. I would like to ask what has been done for the fish industry to develop it, or to protect the interest of all those who go down to the sea and risk their lives arid bring us the food that we so much need? I made a statement on this subject in August last in reference to the distribution of fish. I followed that statement up by personal investigation, and I think I may claim that I did not waste the time of the House in. reference to that subject; and I do not believe that all through my experience I ever got such a heavy post as I received during that period. Some of the letters I received were from fish buyers and they were too awful for words, and in the case of a man who could command such language as was committed to paper in one letter, it must be a natural gift or he could never have written it. I received letters from various fishermen's societies pointing out the difficulties they had to labour under and the need for reform, and all through my pilgrimage in Cornwall and Devonshire in the ten days following that night in the House of Commons I addressed numerous meetings myself, and in every instance I was received with great enthusiasm and resolutions were 309 passed calling upon the Board of Agriculture to prepare a Bill to protect their interests.
I was hoping and thinking when this Bill was introduced that we should have something better than we have got in this respect, and so far as this Clause is concerned, although it contains a very important outline because it speaks of the distribution of fish, I can assure the House to-night that that is a very important side of the whole question. It is one thing to go out into the North Sea or the Atlantic or any part of our British waters and get your boat loaded with fish and bring it into port, but it is quite another thing to dispose of it in such a way that it can reach the consumer quickly and as fresh as possible. As one hon. Gentleman has stated to-night, fish is the main food of the working classes. They want it as cheap as it can be got and as fresh as possible, and the only way of doing that is to make provision for the efficient transport of it, so that the people who have invested their money and risked their lives in obtaining the fish may dispose of it to their benefit as well as to the benefit of the community. I join with the right hon. and hon. Members who have to-night suggested that it would be better to take out just the little crumb of comfort from this Bill; to take it out altogether and to pass a comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole fishing industry and doing so in an effective way, making provision not only for catching and storage, and preservation as well as distribution, but for placing it on the doorsteps of the people as quickly as possible.
I am not hostile to the Bill as it stands. I give it a cordial welcome so far as its agricultural provisions, are concerned; but it does seem to me that the great and enthusiastic expectations which were entertained that the Government would deal with the fishing question in a bold and comprehensive way are woefully disappointed, and I am sure when the fishermen see this one little Clause in the Bill there will be some hot words uttered and some very strong language used. It will be looked upon almost as adding insult to injury to put one obscure little Clause into the Bill as a promise of something that is to be done by and by. It is like giving sweets to a surly and noisy child and asking him to "be quiet, and promise him something better by and by. Therefore, I say take the whole thing out, let 310 us have a comprehensive Bill dealing with the fishing industry, seeing that it is a most important part of our life. These men should be dealt with in an effective way so as to protect the interests of those who get their livelihood, and who thereby contribute so largely to the maintenance of the whole community.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI only have three points to make. I associate myself entirely with the last speaker in asserting that the fishing industry question involves not only the matter of distribution but also the question of fishery harbours, which are very congested, and, in many cases, quite inadequate at the present moment. Then there is the question of the cold storage of fish, and I hope that in the near future when aerial flight is quicker there will be aerial transport for fish. But that is too big a thing to be tacked on to this Bill in connection with agriculture. We want, in fact, a. separate Bill for the fishing industry. At the present moment we have a state of complete confusion with regard to the fisheries of the North Sea. I am speaking for a constituency which is especially interested in this matter. We have some hundreds of trawlers and drifters which were built for the Admiralty during the War and they are now available, but although a scheme has just been brought out for the disposal of them the boats are still hung up, and in the meantime there are numbers of unemployed fishermen who have done splendid service during the War and who certainly deserve better treatment than they are now getting. Therefore, I say let us take this Clause out of the Bill and have a comprehensive measure brought in.
My second point is that I would like an assurance that the interests of the manufacturers of cattle foods will not be neglected, and that they will be given representation on the proposed agricultural councils. In my own Constituency there are a number of important mills connected with this industry, and the people in the trade are extremely sore at the present moment because on the Committee on Agriculture they have no representation at all. Every Member in the House interested in agriculture will agree that their interests are bound up with agriculture, and that cattle breeding cannot be carried on in this country without the aid of the cattle-food manufacturers. I hope we shall be given an assurance that 311 they are not to be neglected in this instance. My third point is in regard to the increase of officials and bureaucrats. I want to know if these various councils and Committees are to have a large secretariat. Will there be a number of fresh officials appointed over and above the present staff of the Board of Agriculture? I hope the House will resist any such step. We have heard a good deal about officials who have been harassing farmers during the War. These men are now looking for further jobs, and if they can make a fresh bureaucracy in connection with this matter over and above the present officials of the Board of Agriculture, we know from past experience that they will do it. Therefore, we must be very careful, and I do urge that we should have an assurance that these new councils are not to have an enormous secretariat attached to them—a clerical staff that will make work which really is not necessary and which, above all, will only add to the expense. I hope, when we see the Financial Resolution, we shall find that the estimate of expenditure has been very carefully drawn, that the amount asked for will be definite, and that it will not be too high. I imagine that these councils and committees are going to take a good deal of work now falling on the shoulders of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPEI rise to draw attention to the position in Scotland under this proposed Bill. Scotland is specially excepted, and in most respects, indeed, the English Board of Agriculture has nothing to do with the administration of agriculture in Scotland. But there is one very important exception, and that is the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in Scotland. As the Parliamentary Secretary well knows that remains under the English Board of Agriculture. There is a good deal of feeling in Scotland on this subject, and there is a strong opinion in favour of transferring the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act to the Scottish Board of Agriculture. But I do not say that that is practicable. All I suggest is that it is a subject of great interest to Scottish agriculturists and cattle breeders, and I received only this morning representations from the Scottish Pedigree Cattle Breeders Committee claiming to administer their own Contagious Diseases (Animals) 312 Act. But that cannot be done. I do not think that Scottish agriculturists would agree to an advisory agricultural committee being set up to advise the English Board of Agriculture on the administration of these Acts in Scotland without some connecting link so that the views of Scottish opinion may be brought to the notice of the English Board of Agriculture. I do not wish to press for any particular method of carrying this into effect. It is well known in Scotland that the Secretary for Scotland has set up, under a certain arrangement not embodied in legislation, an agricultural council for bringing to his notice agricultural opinion in Scotland. I suggest that perhaps two members of this council or two members appointed in some way to represent Scottish agricultural opinion should be added to the Advisory Agricultural Committee, the central body which is provided for in the Schedule of the Act, to take part in its deliberations and to advise the President of the English Board on questions coming up under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. I hope before this Bill goes into Committee the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will consult the Scottish Board of Agriculture on this subject.
Sir A. BOSCAWENWe have had an exceedingly interesting Debate, and I wish to thank the House for the generally very kind reception which has been given to this Bill. I know, of course, that the Bill does not go as far as many hon. Members desire, but as I pointed out at the start it is really a Bill of machinery, a Bill of organisation, and it does not pretend to carry out any definite agricultural or fishery policy. With regard to agricultural policy, I hope that a Bill based on the Prime Minister's proposals may be brought forward before long, and as regards fishery, as I have already said, we have had under consideration proposals for dealing with this great and important industry, the value of which we fully appreciate, and we are now considering much wider proposals, which I hope may be brought in next Session Turning to the points on which there has been controversy, I think they are almost entirely Committee points. I will just say a word upon one or two of them. The first question is as to the payment of the members of county committees. One hon. Member suggested that they are going to be paid. It is not so. I never 313 suggested payment to these committees except to those members who represent smallholders and allotment-holders and who are specially put on to represent their interests on the Small Holdings Committee. On the more general question of payment of expenses and subsistence allowance of Labour members, I fully appreciate the point of view that these men cannot attend the meetings unless they are paid, and if the matter rested with me I should like to see general provision made with that object. But we are dealing with the whole question of the payment of members of county councils. No member of the county council or of any committee of the county council has his expenses paid at the present time; he only gets a subsistence allowance, and we can hardly propose that members of agricultural councils should be paid when members of county councils are not. But the whole question is under consideration.
§ Mr. ROYCEBut you make provision to pay the Labour representatives on the Small Holdings Committees!
Sir A. BOSCAWENNo; only in respect of a very special class, namely, smallholders. The whole question, I believe, is under consideration, but could hardly be determined as a general principle in this Bill. There is no fear of anything in the nature of what are called subsidised cinemas in order to enliven the countryside. The sole expenditure which falls under this head has relation to inquiries which may be made as to the best way of promoting social well-being and rural industries in county districts. The outside expenditure will be something in the nature of the payment of people who are setting out to organise this sort of thing.
I now come to what is by far the most difficult question, and that is the composition of the councils. I wish to consultion. Members' views as far as I can, but the advice, I get is so signally contradictory that it would be exceedingly difficult for me to know what advice to accept-That being the case, probably the opinion of the Board of Agriculture will be the best. For instance, on the question of boroughs, one hon. Member said, "Cut them out altogether." Another said, "Give them full representation." I certainly could not cut them out altogether. I want as far as possible to break down 314 the distinction as regards agriculture between urban and rural life. If by allotments, and by boroughs taking an active interest in the settling of the soldiers on the land, as some are, that sort of barrier was broken down, so much the better; but, on the other hand, we must not out-vote the country representatives by people who represent large towns, and I think the plan suggested of a limited number of borough representatives would be the best. However, I will favourably consider all proposals with a most impartial mind, and try to come to the best solution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested that special trades should be put on. We really cannot deal with special trades. If we put on cattle food traders. why not the makers of artificial manures and why not other trades? I got a letter yesterday suggesting that consumers should be put on. My answer is that all the members will be consumers, but I suppose what is intended is a special representative of consumers. We really cannot consider special trades, nor can we consider what we must call the general public outside, when we are dealing with a body which is specifically to represent an industry.
Then there is the difficult question of fishery, I do not want to be misunderstood, and I think it possible that some of the words I used were misunderstood by the hon. Member (Mr. Irving). I did not say that local sea fishery committees were played out. I said some people thought so, and that is true. What I indicated was that when we are bringing in a bigger Bill it might be possible to introduce some new bodies on a wider basis more thoroughly representative of the whole industry than the existing body is. I recognise to the full the good work these bodies have done, especially the committee of which the hon. Member is himself a member. I do not want in any way to depreciate their worth for the benefit of the industry as a whole. I am entirely in the hands of the House, and I am quite willing to take the most impartial view in Committee. If I am persuaded that the fishery industry would sooner be left out of the Bill altogether I am quite willing to leave it out, and put it into another Bill.
§ Mr. IRVINGWould the hon. Gentleman undertake in Committee to make 315 Clause 5 more definite, and then we could feel that we had something, however small? We do not feel that now.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI am too old a Parliamentary hand to make a definite promise on Second Reading of what I will do in Committee. I am quite prepared to consider the matter in the broadest possible spirit; but if hon. Members ask me to drop this out of the Bill altogether they must not subsequently taunt me with having paid no attention to fisheries. Does the hon. Member want fisheries to be in or out?
§ Mr. IRVINGI had sooner them be in in a comprehensive way.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThen probably the best way would be to deal with them in a comprehensive way in another Bill. However, I will consider the matter in Committee, but I cannot make any definite promise. The only other point is that raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hope). I know there is a difficult over the fact that the Animals Diseases Acts are administered by the English Hoard in Scotland, and it may be necessary to have some channel of communication and advice from Scotland to the English Board. I anticipated this point being raised, and I have arranged with the Secretary for Scotland to try to devise means by which this may be accomplished. I cannot say more than that at present. I do not agree altogether with some speakers who have deprecated the value of the National Agricultural Council. My own idea is that it will give a corporate existence to agricultural opinion which will be very valuable. In my zeal in praising the Welsh National Agricultural Council I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Weigall) for having omitted the English Council I realise what good work they have done. We now propose to give to bodies of that character a statutory existence. Having a real, live body to focus agricultural opinion in every county in the country is a most important part of the Bill, and if that was the only part of the Bill I should press it on the attention of the House.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a second time? and committed to a Standing Committee.