HC Deb 13 July 1931 vol 255 cc168-99

Amendment made: Leave out the Schedule.—[Dr. Addison.]

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. T. Johnston)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House has discussed this matter in a very friendly atmosphere, and I am sure the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture for the way he has piloted this Measure both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of this House. We on this side are equally grateful to the Noble Lord opposite, who has led the Opposition very pertinaciously from his point of view, but very courteously and very helpfully. The very friendly atmosphere in which this Bill has been discussed will augur well for the future success of this Measure.

Mr. DUGDALE

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: this House cannot assent to the Third Beading of a Bill which, despite great depression in agriculture, imposes upon British home producers solely a dislocation of trading facilities, while leaving unfettered freedom to competing importers. We have now arrived at one of the final stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill in this House. The first time it was discussed in the country was in August, 1930, when a Bill was introduced and, after consultation in the country, was withdrawn and a new Bill was substituted in the winter of last year. That Bill, which was this original Bill, although it is now in an entirely different form, received its Second Reading in February. Since then we have had 24 days in Committee considering the Bill. The OFFICIAL REPORT covers more than 1,100 columns. During all that period we treated this Measure entirely as a business measure, putting aside all party considerations and looking at it from a business point of view. Now we have to decide whether the Bill as it is at present will be a help for the agricultural industry and what should be the duty of His Majesty's Opposition towards it at the present moment. During the course of the Committee stage the Minister of Agriculture showed, as is his custom, an extraordinary courtesy to the Opposition. I would go further than that, and pay him the tribute that the best thing in the Bill is the Minister's method of handling it.

When we come to ask ourselves what is the duty of His Majesty's Opposition to the Measure, as we find it to-day, I say quite definitely that the bad things in the Bill far exceed the good things, and that it is our duty to oppose the Bill on Third Reading. We do so because, in the first place, the Bill attempts to do too much. This Bill has come out of the long series of discussions throughout its various stages as an unwieldy monster which attempts to fulfil two distinctly different objects. The first is to introduce schemes which one may term regulating schemes for the agricultural industry; and the second is to initiate trading schemes for the same industry. In my view, and in that of many Members on this side of the House, the Bill fails in both these objects. It fails in the first object—the introduction of regulating schemes—because in trying to deal with these schemes in the same Measure as trading schemes, we have tied them down by regulations and machinery. There are many Members on this side of the House who would have much preferred to see a simple and straightforward Measure introduced by any Government, of whatever party, to benefit agricultural trading by administrative schemes, which would not have required the machinery of this Bill. In the case of the trading schemes, we find that the opposite is the case, and that there is not sufficient legislation, because the main doorway is left open—the doorway of imported foreign produce.

With regard to regulating schemes, I am confident that every Member, in whatever part of the House he may sit, is anxious to see an extension of organisation in the agricultural industry, and, as was rightly pointed out in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), we are all in agreement with the principle of the standardisation of agricultural produce and its packing, and, most important of all in my opinion, the necessity for getting the agricultural industry to advertise its wares and put them before the country in a presentable form. That could be brought about by simple schemes of administration, such as I term regulating schemes; but I very much regret that, owing to the necessity for piling up machinery in this Bill, since it attempts to deal with trading schemes in the same Measure, in my opinion and, I think, that of many other Members, we have overloaded the donkey so that it will not be able to bear the burden and bear fruit for the industry.

11.0 p.m.

With regard to the trading schemes, although, as the Lord Privy Seal has said, we were all in harmony with regard to the objects of the Bill, I am afraid that here we cross swords definitely with the Minister of Agriculture, and, indeed, with the Government, because all of us on this side of the House are convinced that you cannot materially benefit the agricultural industry by schemes which deal with trading unless you consider the question of foreign imports. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite and for hon. Members below the Gangway on this side to shut their eyes to this great question, but that is really a cowardly act, because sooner or later some Government of some party will have to deal with its eyes open with this question of foreign imports. Take ordinary common commodities like beef, pig meat, butter, milk, cheese, poultry, eggs, potatoes and fruit. That is a group of common commodities which we produce, and which we also import. I have only approximate figures, but, if the Minister thinks that those which I give are largely wrong, no doubt he will say so. We produce in this country every year £203,000,000 worth of this group of products, and we import from foreign countries every year approxi- mately £200,000,000 of the same products. Can the House for a moment forget this question of foreign and home produce? Can we refer to them as a and b. If a and b are two sources of supply and you want to encourage the a supply can you do that by entirely ignoring the b supply? You must take it into account. I entirely agree that you must have organisation in the agricultural industry, but organisation alone, without taking into account imports, cannot succeed to any marked extent.

I know the Minister always has a good reply. He knows he cannot deal with foreign imports, much as he would like to. He is tied by the leg by the people who sent him here. He says, "Very well. I cannot deal with foreign imports. Why should not I get on with the organisation part and wait until such time as someone else is there to deal with the other part?" If that is the argument, are we justified in attempting to compel 33 per cent. of the producers of the country to do things they do not want to do when we allow 100 per cent. of the foreigners to import goods into the country? Until we are prepared to face up to this import question I do not believe we are justified in using the power of coercion, compelling the minority to work in with the majority. Compulsion is only legitimate when you have by legislation done some very great good for that industry. If by legislation you have helped a particular industry to a very marked degree, it may be necessary to have further legislation to ensure that the good that you have brought about is not exploited by certain other small sections of the community, and that is the only time when compulsion is justified.

The Minister is thinking of a reasoned argument to use against me. I know he is thinking of milk. He may be thinking of hops, but on that I give him best, because I do not think there is an argument against hops. But hops are only a very small portion of a very great industry. I am well aware that the time is not far distant when the milk industry will have to be organised. If we look to the future, the only method by which we really can make a success of that reorganisation is by factory control of the surplus production. The right hon. Gentleman will agree. He will say, "You only import £5,000,000 worth of milk a year, which is mostly dried milk, when you produce in this country between £50,000,000 and £59,000,000 worth of milk." What have we to do with this industry? Surely, common sense must tell us that we have to build up factories in order to deal with this industry.

When we look at the statistics of the cheese industry we find that we only manufacture £3,000,000 worth of cheese in this country, whereas we import £12,000,000 worth of cheese from abroad. [HON. MEMBERS: "From the Empire!"] I am not going to be drawn into the question of whether it comes from the Empire or whether it comes from abroad. Wherever it comes from, I am confident that we are perfectly capable of producing it in this country, and as the public like it. The only reason why the public buy a lot of the imported cheese is because it has become a habit. When once a nation or individuals form a habit they do not like breaking it. We could deal with the imports of cheese, if we produced a popular kind of cheese. We should organise the milk industry for the benefit of the industry and the community as a whole.

I turn to what, after all, is the most important point. In discussing the Bill, and rightly so, as a Measure in itself, have we realised in this discussion to-day, in Committee on the Bill and on Second Reading, the depression which the agricultural industry is suffering from to-day? If so, will the Bill help to relieve the agricultural depression? I suggest that it will not help agriculture in one degree to get over the immediate crisis. Will it help the cereal farmer in East Anglia? Will it help the wheat grower on the Wolds of Yorkshire, which is next door to the part of the world from which I come? Inhabitants ask the Minister of Agriculture to go there and see for himself. I know that the Minister realises the condition of the industry in that part of the counry. It is the same in other parts of the country. Will this Bill do anything to relieve their distress and their present crisis?

The other class of farmers who have been suffering during the last few years are the fruit farmers. Will the fruit farmers in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire and other parts of the country benefit as a result of this Measure? [An HON. MEMBER "Yes!"] I do not believe that they can benefit unless you deal with the importation of pulp from abroad. That is the reason why we on this side of the House are compelled to cast our votes against the Third Reading of the Bill. The Government would have had a great and golden opportunity if they had come forward with proposals to reorganise the marketing system and to combine with it a bold handling of the problem of imports into this country. Not only would they have had the whole of the agricultural industry behind them, but they would have had the co-operation of hon. Members on this side of the House. We are convinced that not only will the Bill be of very little material use to the agricultural industry, but it will not in any shape or form fulfil the pledge of the Labour party before the election that farming must be made to pay. For that reason we shall divide against the Third Reading of the Bill by voting for the Amendment which I have the honour to move.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Every hon. Member who has taken any interest in the Bill, and certainly any hon. Member who served during the prolonged Committee stage will come to the conclusion that the Bill is a very much better Bill than it was originally, but that it is stil an extraorinarily bad Bill. I would not like to make that general statement without advancing some facts in support of it. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill in such eloquent terms, dealt with one of the main objections to the Bill, namely, its complete neglect of dealing with one of the fundamental evils which is rotting and sapping away the heart of agriculture in this country—the fact that there is still a number of people—the number is rapidly growing less—who are prepared to allow any foreigner to use the markets of this country for dumping the surplus of his agricultural production.

Another bad point of the Bill is the introduction of the principle of compulsion. The Bill provides that if a minority objects to the bringing into operation of any scheme, that minority shall be compelled to conform and submit. The Minister committed a grave error in not accepting an Amendment which was moved from our side in Committee to alter the proportion of those necessary to secure a poll from two-thirds to three-fourths. The right hon. Gentleman will live to regret that error. Where there is a minority opposed to the poll the right hon. Gentleman will have to do with not one-fourth of enemies of the scheme but one-third. A second objection, which is even more vital, is that when you come to the amount of the regulated product which is to be produced by the regulated producer in order to achieve a successful poll, you may have one-third of the whole product produced by unwilling producers before the board can handle it. When the board has only two-thirds of the product put at their disposal by willing producers, it will be a serious handicap to the board's business to have one-third in the hands of producers definitely hostile to the scheme. On both grounds the right hon. Gentleman committed a profound error.

There is another fundamental objection to the Bill, and that is the degree of interference. There is interference with the existing trade channels through which the agricultural products of this country have passed for generations. They may not be perfect but the people who have operated them have acquired a high degree of skill as a result of years of experience. This Bill will sweep away all that experience and substitute a board which will have to learn many painful lessons before it acquires the skill to ensure the most efficient marketing of the regulated product entrusted to their charge. This is not the occasion to defend the middleman who has been the subject and target of much abuse, but he has performed a function of inestimable value to the industry in the past, and his passing will be an evil day for agriculture. There is to be interference with contracts, and although the whole of Clause 7 has been devised in order to limit that interference it is still there. There are also what I will call the inquisition Clauses of the Bill. We have had the Minister moving a new Clause this afternoon giving powers of inquisition to a board in charge of a scheme. In another Clause we have a consumers committee set up presumably for the purpose of defeating the real object of the Bill; I can think of no other reason for that committee. There is a committee of investigation to look after the consumers' committee and then there is the agricultural marketing organisation committee to look after everybody except themselves, and quite apart from all this family of fleas, one flea on the back of another, there is the super flea, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. Probably he will not be a very busy flea. I hope and trust that he will see that the more he restricts his activities the better chance the Bill will have to operate.

There is all this interference and inquisition, and I say that the producers of the country are going to be pinched between the pincers of compulsion and the thumbscrews of inquisition—[Interruption]—at every stage. The Minister has the reputation of being a most mild mannered Minister—and most deservedly so. In Debate he wears a velvet glove, but the Debates have lasted so long that the gloves are becoming rather worn, there are some holes an them, and peeping through those holes, what do we see? [Interruption.] We see a mailed fist as well as the pincers, if not the thumb-screw of the real inquisitor. We see also, in many of the Clauses, the true faith of the Socialist party. We see the spirit of compulsion, the spirit of inquisition. We see the denial of liberty to the individual in dealing with what he has himself produced, and what he should have the right to dispose of as he wills. We see individual enterprise cut and curtailed at every point. In fact the Bill provides a glaring example of true Socialism at its worst.

Apart from that the Bill is a hopelessly cumbersome Bill. It may be that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "You have helped to make it so." If that be so I would reply that a Bill so full of compulsion, so full of inquisition, had to be safeguarded. It was the duty of the Opposition to put into the Bill the necessary safeguards. I do not say that we have been wholly successful in providing all the safeguards that are necessary, but I think that we on this side may claim to have put in some at least, which will make the Bill less oppressive.

I would not like to close on a note of purely destructive criticism. I have always tried, on the few occasions when I have had the honour to address this House on a subject connected with agriculture, to close on a note of construction. Therefore my last word shall be on that note. The mistake which is made in the Bill is in having made it an omnibus Bill. The Minister has tried to make one great Bill in which every variety of agricultural product can be dealt with. He has attempted the impossible. What he should have done was to have elected one, or possibly two, agricultural products. Hops has been mentioned, and probably hops would have been an easy thing to start with, owing to the limited area upon which it is grown. I would have liked to have seen the right hon. Gentleman take hops and one other product, and to have put into operation some scheme to deal specifically with those particular products. He should not have proclaimed to the agricultural world that a Bill, full of compulsion and inquisition, was to be printed. He should have said to those engaged in the industry, "The whole of the forces of the State are at your disposal to help you. Come along. We will devise a scheme whereby we will improve the marketing of your product. Come and help us to do it, and we will pass a specific Bill, if necessary, to deal with your specific product." That could have been done a year ago, in a short time. Meantime we could have gained experience of the working of the scheme in regard to the one or two specific products. That would have been the right way to tackle this difficult question. This Bill, I believe, will break down because of its own weight, and because of the very fact that it has been made so commodious in order to cover all these different agricultural products. Like the Mover of the Amendment, I regret that after two years of a Socialist Government, pledged to restore agriculture to prosperity, this Bill should be the best contribution which they can offer. I am amazed that any party which came to office as the Socialist party did, should after this lapse of time show themselves so completely barren of constructive proposals. Because I believe that this Bill will not fulfil the purpose for which it is intended, because I believe that it will contribute nothing to the betterment of the present deplorable condition of the agricultural industry, I second the Amendment.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD

We have listened to several interesting speeches raising the old question, so often raised in this House, by hon. Members above the Gangway, namely, the question of Protection, the contention being that this Bill will prejudice the home grower, in competition with the importer. I noticed, however, that the Mover of the Amendment made very few remarks about the Bill itself, confining himself to what he thought should have been done outside the Bill, but what could not by any manner of means have been put into the Bill. I desire to put to the House the proposition that organised and coordinated marketing will help the British grower and the British farmer to meet foreign competition. It has been the organisation of the foreigner which has helped him to displace British goods in our own market. British growers at the present time compete not with the foreigner, but mainly with one another. They compete for what the foreigner leaves of the market—because the foreigner is better organised than they are. If the home producer adjusts his production to the home market, he will beat the importer, provided his production and marketing are equally efficient. Organised restriction is better than meeting the cost of growing a whole crop out of the proceeds of 90 per cent., while 10 per cent. rots on the trees or in the ground. Further, the boards which are to be called into existence will control the surplus and use it to prevent the foreigner from finding a market. The boards will be elected by the growers themselves, so that the growers will, in fact, impose their own restrictions.

The mover of the Amendment referred to the subject of milk and when interrupted from the other side, shrugged his shoulders and remarked that he would not care to bring in any suggestion as to milk products imported from our Dominions. As a matter of fact of the 12,000,000 cheeses imported into this country far the greater part comes from the Dominions. I dare say that was "hard cheese" for the hon. and gallant Member. I noticed that he was not supported on the point by the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), because that hon. and gallant Gentleman is, as we all know, the originator of the quota scheme, which includes the Dominions and which would be so difficult to carry out. When the right hon. Gentleman first brought in this Bill he wrote a letter to the "Times," in which he said:— This is a business Bill, and I must appeal for its consideration in a business manner. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to discuss this Bill as a business man. Still, I wonder if the Bill as it now stands is a businesslike Bill. When I spoke on the Second Beading, I drew attention to two things which I thought should be remedied. The first was the too great powers which were given to the Minister. I am glad to see that owing to the discussion in Committee the powers of the Minister have been considerably Whittled down. The Minister himself is a wily old fox. He succeeded in getting on remarkably well with the right hon, Members on the front Opposition Bench, and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) must have thought that his turn might come when he would be in the position of the right hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench, because, although the power of the Minister has been curtailed in the greater part of the Bill, it still remains practically unimpaired in the Schedule; and it is amazing that this paragraph has been allowed to stand unamended whereas in the body of the Bill the Minister's power to revoke, on a report on a question of investigation, is made subject to the express approval of both Houses.

Hon. Members above the Gangway have been at great pains to move Amendments which will make his power to amend subject to the same rule, but in the Schedule we have unchallenged the Ministers' power to revoke or to amend on his own initiative, and the only safeguard is the tacit approval of Parliament, whereas in the other cases it is the express approval. When the right hon. Gentleman or his successor want to juggle, as they will, with any schemes of which they do not approve, they will juggle under the Schedule instead of juggling under the Clauses.

There is one more point which was alluded to by a previous speaker, and which I also expressed on the Second Reading, and that was that the powers of compulsion granted in the Bill were very considerable. As a Liberal and a Free Trader, I dislike these measures of compulsion. I concede that in the present deplorable state of agriculture and the great need of the farmer, some measure of marketing assistance must be brought in and some measure of compulsion must be applied, but if I am prepared to concede some measure of compulsion, I still consider with great misgivings the powers which are given in the Bill to two-thirds of the producers to override the wishes of one-third. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that one unwilling third inside a scheme can do far more harm than one quarter of unwilling people outside a scheme. The greater the powers exercised by the governing body, the greater the need for ensuring the willing support, goodwill, and agreement of the component parts of the body.

I was reading the other day an old book, and I read: Peter the Great commenced the system of regulating and interfering with the trade and manufactures in Russia. Another example added to those of Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Louis XIV., Napoleon and Mehemet Ali, showing that warriors and despots are generally bad economists, and that they instinctively carry their ideas of force and violence into the civil policy of their governments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not comparing the right hon. Gentleman with any of those illustrious people and I would not care to insult him so far as to say I do not put him into the category of Mehemet Ali. I noticed that hon. Members above the Gangway cheered that quotation. I am glad, because that sentence was written by one who is not often cheered by them, namely, Mr. Cob-den. I trust that they will give due weight to these principles when they are about to make some drastic revolution in our fiscal system.

The powers of the boards under the Bill are so great that I hope that before the Bill finally comes before the House the Minister will find it possible to make one alteration, because, if the provision remains as it is, a majority of two-thirds will be able to coerce a minority of one-third. The powers are too great if they can be exercised against one-third of the producers. If the Minister opposes Amendments, it will mean that he wishes to coerce the one-third minority, and that he expects them to be coerced. I submit that, unless the schemes are agreed to by the majority of the producers, they cannot be a success, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the methods he should employ are not methods of compulsion, but the methods of persuasion and education. It is only if farmers and agriculturists are persuaded that the methods of the Reorganization Committee will really help them that this Bill can be a success.

Sir HARRY HOPE

The object of this Bill is to reduce the cost of marketing agricultural produce by introducing a system of interference with the producers in the sale of their produce. We know that farmers have great difficulty in making ends meet at the present time, and that it is necessary that they should reduce the cost of marketing to the very utmost and to bring the producer nearer to the consumer. Will this Bill enable that to be done, and as the same time enable production to be carried on in the most progressive manner? This Bill must be judged in accordance with those two standards, and I desire to bring before the House one or two practical points. Take the production of potatoes. In recent years there has been an enormous change in the transport of that commodity to the market.

By the development of motor transport the whole system of selling the crop has been completely altered. Formerly farmers sold their crops of potatoes to wholesale merchants who distributed them to local or city merchants, and they in their turn sold them to the retailers—the shops or co-operative stores. This meant that there were two merchants who had to be paid out of the crop, and it was only on what may be called suburban land, that is, land within, say, three miles of a city, that the producers got any closer to the consumers than I have described. By motor transport all that has been changed. From a radius of 25 to 30 miles potatoes are now driven directly into our towns, either to be dis- tributed by the small city merchants or to be sold direct to the shops or stores. This Bill stops that improved method. These potatoes have now to go through the hands of a pool, which acts as another middleman. Therefore, instead of the producer getting nearer to the consumer he is being put further back. By interfering with the farmer handling his crop at the time when he thinks it best to handle it we are introducing injury to the whole economy and work of the farmer.

I am sorry to trouble the House with a practical illustration, but let me say that in the business of farming the growing and selling of a crop must be considered as a compound operation. Every process has to be linked. This Bill takes from the grower the power to sell his crop at the time at which for practical reasons, he knows that it should be sold. An improved method of potato culture has been evolved lately, namely, that of boxing the seeds. To get the seeds put into boxes in time the farmer has to sell a section of the crop, that is, the eating section of the crop, in order to get the seed out of his pits or clamps, but this Bill takes from him the power he used to have of selling his potatoes when he wanted to do so and he is prevented from carrying out this improved method of conducting his farming operations, which will have the effect of reducing the production and the weight of his crop.

Then, again, different markets take different varieties of potatoes. Even different samples of the same variety are suitable to different markets. The grower knows all that, and, by experience, can fit in the public desire for various kinds of potatoes with his stocks by sending one variety to one market and another to another market. By this Bill all that is destroyed. Potatoes are not like manufactured articles. They have to be sold, if they are to bring the best price to the grower, in the way that the public likes them. It is only by the grower having the power to distribute them in this scientific manner that the best return can come to the industry.

I will give one other practical illustration of how this Bill will have a prejudicial effect in another direction. By this Bill all cattle can only be sold when the officials controlling the pool say that they are to be sold. Suppose that a farmer's stock of turnips in Scotland or of mangolds in England begins to run short, it is an absolutely impossible position for him then if he is forbidden by officials to sell his stock. Again in summer, if his grass burns up, as it does on some soils, the farmer needs to be in a position to sell some of his stock when his pasture begins to burn. This Bill takes that power out of his hands and puts him under the control of a board which may compel him to keep his stock, although it be ruinous to him. When farmers are thus compelled to obey the orders of these pools, there will be some new words brought into existence which will not be taught in the churches or in Sunday schools.

These are practical reasons why this interference with the skill of the farmer is bound to have a prejudicial effect. The expert stockman knows what the right proportions of food are to produce stock of a superior quality, which enables him to get a better demand for it, and by selling out his stock in regular weekly lots to get a better price for it than he would if a pool told him that he must not sell it for another six weeks. Such orders would have disastrous effects on the producers, and, therefore, as a practical measure for the relief of agriculture, this Measure is one of the worst things any Government could bring forward.

In the last forty years there has been an enormous advance in the methods of British agriculture and in knowledge as regards the requirements of both plants and animals. Knowledge of the proper quantities and proportions of nitrogenous, phosphatic and potassic ingredients in fertilisers has enabled our corn production to be enormously increased. It is by an extension of knowledge in that direction that lasting benefits can be given. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of bringing forward this tyrannical and unsuitable Measure, had done something to extend the development of this scientific work, he would have done something to make his name as a progressive and useful Minister of Agriculture. For instance, the veterinary profession lags far behind in telling us anything as to the causes or cure of disease in animals. If he had made a forward move in that direction, he would have done something better than bringing forward this Bill and taking from the skill of the practical farmer the power of determining when he shall sell his produce and his stock. He is bringing forward in this Bill a scheme fraught with the greatest harm and danger to British argiculture.

Major DUDGEON

I support wholeheartedly the Third Beading of this Bill, taking it for what it really is, a Bill to improve the machinery for the marketing of British agricultural produce. It can be summarised as a Bill to standardise British agricultural production and to rationalise its distribution. Undoubtedly, in this country to-day we have a very great market indeed for agricultural produce, and the reason why the home producer does not have a considerable share of the home market is that in may instances the home production is not properly graded and no standardisation has been arrived at. When we tackle this question of standardising our agricultural products, the great body of British consumers will give a preference to our own farmers. At present, the products that come in from abroad and from the Dominions can be relied upon, whereas, if the consumer buys the best British butter or bacon, he gets a different quality every time. Only by getting our products regulated and standardised can we ensure a larger share of our home market.

The Members above the Gangway have all along tried to drag in the question of foreign countries. It was clearly explained on Second Reading that that was not the object in view. The main agricultural organisation in Scotland has supported this Measure, because, while they believe that a certain control of foreign imports is desirable, they recognise at the same time that no great case can be made out for any control of foodstuffs coming into this country until such time as the producers of food in this country have put their own house in order and are placing their produce on the market in such a condition that the consumers will purchase it.

I should like to associate myself with what the Lord Privy Seal said at the commencement of this Third Reading debate with regard to the conduct of the Minister in piloting the Bill through this House and through the Standing Committee. He has shown on all occasions, not only a great mastery of the terms of this complicated Measure, but a disposition to meet every legitimate criticism in a fair and generous manner. I should like, too, to associate myself with the Lord Privy Seal's remarks regarding the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), who also showed a most masterly grip of this Measure, and was much more sympathetic than many Members of his party towards the objects which the Measure is intended to achieve. I believe that when it is placed on the Statute Book it will give to farmers the opportunity, and it is up to them to seize it, of regulating and organising markets, of stabilising prices, and of ensuring by an up-to-date and comprehensive system a greater measure of prosperity for British agriculture than it has known for many years.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM

I rise as one who, as I have said before, is directly connected with the soil, to welcome the Third Reading of this Bill. I think a wrong impression has been created with regard to the Bill, especially by the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope), who spoke of compulsion. There is no compulsion in this Bill whatever. It is a voluntary Measure. It rests with producers themselves to form a board, so that there cannot be said to be compulsion. There is disorganisation at the present time with regard to certain products. Early potato growers are tumbling over one another now in the market, whereas if they were regulated there would be a fair price for them. We want the organisation and regulation which this Bill provides. It would be worth passing if only for the milk industry alone, and it is worth passing for the sake of potatoes and fruit. In the organisation of the fruit industry and progress with canning there are great prospects. With regard to the accusation that the Government have done nothing, I would ask, what about the Land Drainage Act? The present Minister of Agriculture, when that Measure was hung up in another place, brought it down and passed through this House, and it is now in operation.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid that we cannot discuss it now.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but an accusation was made that the Government had done nothing. Something has been said with regard to a "bug" being found in butter, but I am glad to say that the county from which I come has become the champion county for the production of butter with no "bugs" in it. The boards which will be formed under this Bill will have power to organise surplus stocks. I venture to say that, if you went into a grocer's shop and asked for a pound of home-made black currant jam, you could not get it, although we heard last year of black currants being allowed to rot; and the supplies of tinned strawberries were all sold out before Christmas. A Bill for the regulation and co-ordination of agricultural produce affords great possibilities, and eventually we on this side will go forward with a larger programme of import boards.

12 m.

Viscount WOLMER

I should like to explain why I am unable to support the Third Reading. I wish to thank the Lord Privy Seal for the generous words which he has used about myself and to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the way he has handled the Bill. He has not moved the closure once in Committee or on Report, and I commend his example to his colleagues. It is up to us to thank him for the considerate way in which he has treated us and the genuine efforts he has made on a large number of points to meet the criticisms that we have brought against the Bill. We have in Committee and on Report endeavoured to improve the Bill and, with the good will of the Minister, I think we have largely succeeded. It is undoubtedly improved in many respects from what it was when it was introduced, and it is now fair to say that it need not be used by the farmers unless the great majority of them want to use it. But that fact is in itself going to result in the Bill not being used at all until the question of foreign imports is dealt with and, when the Minister asks us to assent to the Third Reading and to share with him the responsibility of passing it in its final stage, we cannot give that co-operation, because we feel that the solution of the problem which he has presented to the farmers is, in the form in which he has presented it, no solution at all. It is only half a solution. It is the box without the lid—the bath without the waste plug. It will not hold water. Unless you are prepared to deal with the question of foreign imports, it is impossible to hope to gain stabilisation of agricultural prices. It is impossible to hope to gain fair play for our farmers.

If the Minister had been able to deal with the whole problem, to deal with price stabilisation in its entirety, to deal with foreign imports as well as home produce, I for one would have met him in cordial co-operation. I believe in organised marketing. I believe in standardisation and organisation, and I believe British agriculture has great benefits to gain from it, provided that the question of foreign produce is dealt with at the same time. The whole point of the Bill is to deal with the 33 per cent. of dissenting farmers. I am prepared to accord to the 66 per cent. the power, under proper safeguards for the individual of fair play and justice, to coerce the 33 per cent., but only if the Minister will confer upon them the power of dealing with the 100 per cent. of foreign farmers. Because he tries to coerce the 33 per cent. of English farmers and will not move a little finger to touch the 100 per cent. of foreign farmers, we cannot accompany him in the last stage of this Agricultural Marketing Bill.

Dr. ADDISON

I am sure that, speaking on behalf of many of my colleagues, we appreciated very much indeed the friendly sentiments of the Noble Lord and of his friends. I would like to join with him in bearing testimony to the way in which the Bill was dealt with in Committee. With a few trivial exceptions, I think that I can fairly say that it was dealt with on its merits as a business proposition; in fact, it won its way through Committee. I am sure the Noble Lord and his friends will join with me and my hon. and right hon. Friends in saying that our friendly proceedings there were in no small measure due to the skilful guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). The case for the Amendment is that we are not to do this, because we ought to do something else. That is a very old reason. I am familiar with that objection. I think it goes back to the beginning of the history books. It is always an objection to doing something that you are not doing something else. I have long since ceased to regard that as an objection in itself. As a matter of fact, if the Noble Lord and his friends had the job to do, they would find that, if they had to deal with foreign imports, they would become convinced of the necessary corollary of home marketing organisation on this side. They would find that that would be their first task. Another reason why they would find that the home marketing organisation was an essential concomitant of an imports organisation is to be found in the Treaties with which they themselves helped to saddle this country, and in connection with an important provision of which we should require to deal with home products in the same way as we dealt with foreign imports of a like nature, to quote the words of the Treaty. Therefore the noble Lord would not have escaped from this task even if he had started in the other way. He would still have found himself compelled to create a home marketing organisation.

I think I shall have no difficulty in showing that the method of approach which the Government have adopted, and which I helped to defend in Committee for a long time, is the right one. To come a little closer to it for a few minutes, I see that the hon. and gallant Member who proposed the Amendment was very careful not to say much that was damaging to the Bill. I appreciate that fact, because I know the reason. He reluctantly became a convert to the Bill in Committee upstairs; at all events, I think that I can say quite faithfully that he thinks there is a good deal in it. I appreciate the fact that there was very little in his speech that was damaging to the Bill. It was all about that other thing which is on the horizon somewhere, and which has been dangled before this country for the last 50 years to my knowledge.

The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had a double-barrelled complaint. He protested too much. On the one hand he said that we had tried to do too much, that we had tackled too many problems, and on the other hand he said that we had no constructive suggestions to make. Whichever ground he chooses he will select for himself, but they are not naturally self-supporting. One thing was clear, or I hope it was clear, in his criticism, and it was that we had failed to deal with foreign imports and that there were fleas all over the place. I was not clear whether he would deal with the fleas by pincers or by thumb-screws. What that had to do with the Marketing Bill I have not the slightest idea. We have to organise our home market. Take the case of milk. The urgent necessity which is looming before the agricultural community this autumn does not depend upon our dealing with foreign imports. The big issue, which affects a trade worth forty, fifty or sixty million pounds to the farmers, comes within the next three or four months. It depends upon their ability to conclude a proper bargain in regard to milk prices and their ability to secure a proper arrangement for dealing with their surplus, the existence of which surplus continually decimates their market. They can only deal with the surplus by organisation. Every man acquainted with the state of the milk industry knows that that issue is almost immediately before them. How are they going to deal with that issue by dealing with imported dried milk? It does not touch the question. We produce eight hundred million gallons of milk, of which six hundred million gallons are sold as liquid milk, and the market for that liquid milk is determined by our ability to handle the margin which is called surplus milk. That decides the prosperity or the adversity of the farmers of this country. Are we to delay dealing with that matter until we deal with the question of the importation of dried milk from Switzerland? We cannot afford to wait, with this great issue before the farming community. We propose to give them power to deal with this matter straight away.

Take potatoes. There is a crop worth £20,000,000, as a rule. The result of a very small surplus on that crop is serious. The surplus in the year 1929 was a small one of about 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., but the result was that the value of the total crop in 1929–1930 was £11,500,000, whereas the value of a crop of a smaller tonnage five or six years previously was £28,000,000. The existence of a trivial 10 per cent. surplus in that potato crop, which was greater than in the year before, sent down the value of the crop to the producer some £7,000,000. It was that small surplus that was responsible. The loss in the value owing to a small surplus in two other years was greater than the total value of wheat produced in this country. When we have a big fact like that before us, it is no use saying that we must not deal with such a question until we have dealt with new potatoes that come into the country in the spring. There is no relation between the two problems. I recognise the problem of imports, it is continually before us. Take the question of Danish bacon. We import £44,000,000, and we produce but a tenth of that amount. Why? It is not because of tariffs; it is organisation. Why should we wait and do nothing in the face of a market flooded by imports, highly standardised and sold by a highly skilled trade organisation, which even advertises in our town tubes? And how are these advertisements paid for? They are paid because you have an organisation representing the whole industry. A small levy on the organisation pays for them. If we had a small levy of ¼d. per gallon on milk it would produce £250,000; and think what could be done to improve the organisation, transport and the standard quality of the article by such a sum of money. We have not looked at our opportunities.

I come to the question of fruit, where we have foreign competition, and where it is very necessary that we should do our best to make use of our own splendid opportunities. Think what the fruit grower could have done with this organisation. He could have made large scale contracts with the canning industry. We have no large fruit organisation which can make such contracts with the canning industry, which at the moment is going ahead by leaps and bounds in this country. If we could produce a high grade standard product the British housewife is always glad to pay for home supplies at a fair price. It depends on her being able to get a standardised article of the right quality and at the right time. If we could have large scale contracts with the canning industry it would give a security to our fruit growers which at present they have not got. If this Bill is passed, and if they have any sense, they will get a board which will be able to make these arrangements. This also applies to packing, transport and the collection of goods. My right hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Empire Marketing Board which is proposing to set on foot a special campaign to assist the sale and develop the production of British homegrown canned fruit.

There is an immense market waiting for our products, but what is the difficulty which has been experienced? The difficulty is in making use of the opportunity before us. There are great organisations, some of which I could name which would be perfectly willing to place orders for home-produced goods of a standardised type if those goods could be delivered in the quantities required and at the time required. Our difficulty is in meeting those requirements and that is what prevented my right hon. Friend's Committee from making the fullest use of the opportunities which are before us. I know the difficulties, but I know that we have in this country the finest food market in the world and I know that we produce some of the best stuff in the world and that we have some of the best producers in the world. It would be sheer folly if we did not take every opportunity and do everything we could to help those splendid producers to organise themselves in a better way to make a better use of our magnificent home market. It is with that design in front of us that I recommend the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. R. W. SMITH

Before we part with this Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]—the House ought to know the real desires of farmers with regard to the marketing of agricultural products. The hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Major Dudgeon) made a statement about agricultural opinion in Scotland and said that the National Farmers' Union in Scotland had always supported this Measure. [Interruption.] I want to make this clear on the Third Reading of the Bill—and I put it particularly to the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway and to the Lord Privy Seal, that the Bill does not carry out the wishes of the National Farmers' Union, or of any organised section of Scottish agricultural opinion with regard to marketing.

Mr. DALLAS

What about the Farmers' Union in the hon. Member's own constituency?

Mr. SMITH

I make that statement and I defy any hon. Member opposite to contradict it. I propose to prove my case from the National Farmers' Union's own statements. It is true that they have supported agricultural marketing, but what they want is control of imports. [Interruption.] The House ought to know what are the facts with regard to the opinion of the National Farmers' Union and other bodies, and I propose to read a letter written to me on 9th January of this year. This is what the letter said: At a meeting of the Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine area executive of the Farmers' Union, I was instructed to write and request you to grant the privilege of an interview to a small deputation from the Union to discuss with you the question of control of imports which it is hoped might be added to the Government's Marketing Bill or passed separately and simultaneously. That was from the Union branch in my own constituency. I have also here an official document of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. It is dated 12th March of this year. I will read the whole letter if the Minister wants me to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The letter states: I have to re-affirm that this Union have approved of the principle of organised marketing and support the Bill now in Committee subject to the amendment of certain Clauses therein. The final paragraph of the letter is: A Memorandum embodying our suggested amendments was sent to you on 9th February last. When I turned to the Amendments which were sent to me on 9th February I find that the first was to delete from the word "and," in line 17 of Clause 1—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not know whether these Amendments have been discussed in the past or not, but it is certainly not in order to discuss them now.

Mr. SMITH

I am pointing out that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, by their amendments, showed that they were only in favour of this Bill if it contained control of foreign imports. While Members of this House, including the Lord Privy Seal, claim that the whole agricultural opinion of Scotland was in favour of the Bill, I am pointing out that what the Union were in favour of, was this Bill plus control of imports.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

And when the hon. Member has said that, I suppose he has covered the whole of the Amendments which he was about to read to the House.

Mr. SMITH

I was going to read the statement of the Farmers' Union as follows: If this provision were allowed to remain in the Bill it would be open for producers situated outwith the area covered by the Scheme to send into the area and sell to the detriment of the Scheme, any regulated product. …. A producer just outside the area, or a producer outwith Great Britain, would be under no such restrictions, and could at certain times undermine the market within the area for the sale of the regulated products. On the 29th June the same body wrote: I trust you will make every endeavour to assist us in pressing for the deletion from Clause 18 (1) (c) of the Bill, of the words referred to. They gave an Amendment and a copy of letter addressed to the Minister which states: I am instructed to strenuously oppose the inclusion in Clause 18 (1) (c) relating to the definition of 'regulated product' of the words— 'but does not (except in the expression "consumers of the regulated product") include any product, kind or variety, in so far as it is produced outside the area to which the scheme is applicable.' That is the National Farmers' Union's point of view in regard to the Bill. Now I come to another body. The Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland wrote to me, and I said on Second Reading that they were opposed to the Bill unless it contained the control of imports. A member of the Government said I was wrong, so I asked the Chamber of Agriculture again, and they informed me that the memorandum of the Chamber, dated November, 1930, expressed generally the views of the Chamber on the Bill, and that if there was to be no control of imports it might be taken that the Chamber did not approve of the Bill. [Interruption.] The Government have a very fine opinion of the Scottish agricultural organisations. In the report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation in Scotland of last year it is stated: It is necessary for the health of the agricultural industry to prevent the fluctuations of prices by uncontrolled imports. Any organisations of home producers established to stabilise prices and to promote orderly marketing will be crippled in its efforts unless protected from the operations of speculators. It follows, therefore, from what I have said that a good many of the organisations in Scotland are opposed to this Bill unless it contains provisions for the control of imports. I want to go further than that and to show why it is absolutely necessary to have control of imports. [Interruption.] Why do you require compulsion in the Bill? The money you are paying out is not being used to the proper advantage. You could use this money better in order to prove that co-operation is a good thing than by spreading it about in the way that you propose. If these schemes fail, you are doing something which must harm your own Bill. The cooperative movement has hardly ever been a success in Scotland. I think, if the schemes fail, you are going to drive people away from co-operation, and you are going to do more harm. We are not spending money in the best way, and I do appeal to the Minister not to pass the Bill. We are doing something that will be detrimental to co-operation and something which is not asked for by agriculture in Scotland unless at the same time you control imports.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON

As one who has sat out during the long days in the Committee upstairs, I want to make only a few observations. The first thing I have to say is that this Bill, according to the Minister of Agriculture who has just spoken, ought really to be a Milk Bill and nothing else. The only thing that the Bill will do will be to give some power to deal with milk and possibly with hops. It is an overweighted Bill, and it is perfectly certain that no body of sane farmers will ever co-operate and try to work under its provisions. After all if you have a marketing Bill it is to improve prices. If it is to improve prices, you have to set off against that the investigation committee's, the consumers' committees, and they are out for the very reverse of what this Bill proposes to do. It is perfectly certain that the Bill as at present drawn is no earthly good to our farmers in the North. They have a financial liability with no possible chance of advantage out of the Bill. [Interruption.] Might I ask the hon. Member who is outside the House to refrain from interrupting.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I was under the impression that somebody was speaking from outside the House, but I could not detect the individual. Will the two hon. Members standing at the back beyond the Bar please sit down.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

This Bill is going to affect our agricultural community for which I have a great regard. You have taken power in this Bill to coerce a minority which I consider is far too-large. You are to compel them to come into this measure whether they want to do so or not, and you are to compel them to come into a financial liability whether they want to do so or not. I think that is monstrous. [Interruption.] I am glad so many Members agree with me that it is monstrous to try and compel a minority against their will to come into a Bill like this. I think the Bill is so drawn that it will never work. The chances of gain are so small as compared with the chances of loss, and the committee's investigations are going to ruin the chance of getting any real return. The Bill has been very badly drawn. Then again you are going to ruin existing markets which have been built up for generations, which have been in existence for over one hundred years, and which have helped farmers through very difficult times.

This Marketing Bill ought never to be supported by any reasonable or substantial farmer. Then you have the very difficult question of price. How on earth are you to control prices in this country if you do not deal with foreign imports? [Interruption.] How are you to deal with cereal imports if you are not to deal with cereals? Here you are to control the price of home cereals when at the same time you allow incoming cereals to supplant them. Do you think that is going to help the British farmer? Everyone who has had anything to do with the marketing of cereals knows that there is a limited market, and, therefore, if you allow unlimited imports as opposed to controlled prices for home cereals you are going to create a very difficult situation for the farmers. Not one word has been said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to dealing with potatoes. This is purely a milk and hops Bill—[Interruption]—and nothing else. It is so drawn, and the financial conditions are so stringent—while the inquiries and investigation committees are so overpowering—that the Bill will never work. From the point of view of the Agricultural Committee, I recommend the House to refuse a Third Reading to the Bill.

Mr. KEDWARD

I should not have intervened, but for the last speech. It would be a great mistake to allow the Debate to close down on that note. The hon. and gallant Member says he is quite sure the Bill will not work. I am sure that if that was believed by the hon. Members above the Gangway we should not be here at this hour. It is because they are quite sure that it will work that we are having all this fuss. I noticed that the hon. and gallant Member said that the Bill would be useless unless they controlled imports. Control of imports in relation to hops is an outstanding example. You had a £4 duty on hops and your hops came down to 50s. a cwt. [Interruption.] You applied your remedy of tariffs, and your tariff was powerless to help you—despite the fact that it was a heavy tariff—because you had no organised market. You threw the whole hop industry into chaos. I want to point out, on the other hand, in relation to butter, that you had an advertisement from two of the largest local authorities in the "Farmer and Stockbreeder," and other papers, asking for tenders for British butter. That advertisement was from two of our largest institutions, and they did not get a single tender for the supply of British butter.

HON. MEMBERS

Why?

Mr. KEDWARD

Because you are not organised; because you are producing little quantities of butter of varying qualities and sending it in small quantities to various markets. If you had a tariff on butter to-morrow, you would not be able to compete and take large contracts without a Bill of this kind. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on producing the Bill. It is the greatest step forward this House has made to help our greatest basic industry. The question of marketing has not moved forward for the last 50 or 60 years. It has gone on with the same methods. Everyone who deals with the farmer is organised. Everyone who sells stuff to him is organised within rings and combines. Take even this week my own case of sending produce into the market. I sent some hundreds of pounds of black currants. The return I got was a matter of 2d. per pound, and yet in the shops they were marked up at 6d. and 8d. a lb. That has nothing to do with foreign competition. Between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays you have £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 of money—enough to put the agricultural industry on its feet without the question of tariffs. The matter of tariffs you may have to consider—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member must not widen the debate.

Mr. KEDWARD

I should be very sorry to widen the debate. I would only say that, unless you can bring into agricultural marketing some system, then there is no hope for British agriculture. They take stuff into the market now, and nobody knows how many buyers will be there and what stuff would be there. We do not know whether there will be fifteen or two hundred cattle or two buyers or twenty. You get gluts in one market and shortages in another. A few dealers take these goods and ship them from market to market and get a handsome living. We are not coercing farmers. One hon. Member drew a sorry picture of a farmer being forced to sell his cattle because his stuff had dried up, and they were starving on grass land. Does he think that sixty-six per cent. of the farmers are arrant fools? Before a tithe of these things would happen the sixty-six per cent. of the farmers would have to take leave of their senses. We have to give them credit for being practical business men. This is a permissive Measure to give them power to organise and run their own industry. There will, of course, be a number of people who will be reluctant to come in. They are people in the hands of the dealers and other people, and there will be a lot of people working to prevent the scheme coming into operation. When it is in operation these others will come in. I congratulate the Minister on getting the Bill through, for this courtesy, and for his knowledge of the subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 128.

Division No. 392.] AYES. [12.49 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Paling, Wilfrid
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Herriotts, J. Potts, John S.
Alpass, J. H. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Price, M. P.
Ammon, Charles George Hoffman, P. C. Quibell, D. J. K.
Arnott, John Hollins, A. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Attlee, Clement Richard Horrabin, J. F. Raynes, W. R.
Aylea, Walter Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)
Barr, James Isaacs, George Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Batey, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Ritson, J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Romeril, H. G.
Benson, G. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Bowen, J. W. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Rowson, Guy
Brooke, W. Kelly, W. T. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Brothers, M. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Sanders, W. S.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kinley, J. Sawyer, G. F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Lang, Gordon Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Burgess, F. G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Cameron, A. G. Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) Sherwood, G. H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Law, Albert (Bolton) Shield, George William
Chater, Daniel Law, A. (Rosendale) Shillaker, J. F.
Cluse, W. S. Lawrence, Susan Simmons, C. J.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Compton, Joseph Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Leach, W. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Daggar, George Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Dallas, George Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Dalton, Hugh Lees, J. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Leonard, W. Sorensen, R.
Denman, Hon. R. D Lewis, T. (Southampton) Stamford, Thomas W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lindley, Fred W. Strauss, G. R.
Duncan, Charles Lloyd, C. Ellis Sullivan, J.
Ede, James Chuter Logan, David Gilbert Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Edmunds, J. E. Longbottom, A. W. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Egan, W. H. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Tinker, John Joseph
Freeman, Peter MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Toole, Joseph
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) McElwee, A. Vaughan, David
Gibbins, Joseph McEntee, V. L. Viant, S. P.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) McShane, John James Walker, J.
Gill, T. H. Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thamplon) Wallace, H. W.
Glassey, A. E. Manning, E. L. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gossling, A. G. Mansfield, W. Wellock, Wilfred
Gould, F. Marley, J. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Marshall, Fred West, F. R.
Gray, Milner Mathers, George Westwood, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Matters, L. W. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Messer, Fred Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Middleton, G. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Grundy, Thomas W. Mills, J. E. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Milner, Major J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Montague, Frederick Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Morley, Ralph Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Mort, D. L. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Murnin, Hugh Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Noel Baker, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Haycock, A. W. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.
Hayday, Arthur Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Hayes, John Henry Palin, John Henry
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Albery, Irving James Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Butler, R. A.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Campbell, E. T.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Boyce, Leslie Carver, Major W. H.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Bracken, B. Castle Stewart, Earl of
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Braithwaite, Major A. N. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Brass, Captain Sir William Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Bird, Ernest Roy Broadbent, Colonel J. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Boothby, R. J. G. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Chapman, Sir S.
Christie, J. A. Hartington, Marquess of Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Colfox, Major William Philip Haslam, Henry C. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Colman, N. C. D. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rose, Ronald D.
Colville, Major D. J. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Cooper, A. Duff Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Salmon, Major I.
Cranborne, Viscount Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Iveagh, Countess of Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Kindersley, Major G. M. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Savery, S. S.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Llewellin, Major J. J. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Smithers, Waldron
Dixey, A. C. Lockwood, Captain J. H. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Long, Major Hon. Eric Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Eden, Captain Anthony Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Elliot, Major Walter E. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Thompson, Luke
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,-M.) Margesson, Captain H. D. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Ferguson, Sir John Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Todd, Capt. A. J.
Fison, F. G. Clavering Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Turton, Robert Hugh
Ford, Sir P. J. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Frece, Sir Walter de Muirhead, A. J. Warrender, Sir Victor
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nall-Cain, A. R. N. Wayland, Sir William A.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wells, Sydney R.
Ganzoni, Sir John Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Peake, Capt. Osbert Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Perkins, W. R. D. Womersley, W. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Ramsbotham, H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gritten, W. G. Howard Remer, John R. Sir George Penny and Captain
Gunston, Captain D. W. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Wallace

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.