§ Sir JOSEPH LAMBI beg to move, in page 17, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a).
This paragraph reads:
for prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be millable wheat;I think it would be very unwise to give this power. In the first place, the producer is very inadequately represented on the Wheat Board, which will have the making of these regulations and orders. Another reason is that I believe it is absolutely unnecessary to do it, because millers know, whether they will admit it or not, that there is no wheat to-day which is not millable. With all the machinery and processing methods that they have, there is very little, if any at all, which is not of millable quality. I do not say that it does not vary in quality, but, with the machinery that they have, practically any wheat can be and is used for flour making.My final point is this. I think the position will be adequately met by the procedure of the Bill itself, which I think is a very admirable one, because one of the chief features of the Bill is that it leaves a free market for the sale of wheat. The true value of the wheat will be determined by the first payment; that is to say, the free market made by the miller or dealer with the farmer. I look upon the deficiency payment, not in the sense of a payment for the value of the wheat, but more as a payment for having produced wheat under conditions which are unsuitable in some cases as compared with the 602 conditions that exist elsewhere. The true value of the wheat will be found by the first payment that is made in the open market. On these grounds, I ask the Minister to consider the Amendment favourably and to see if he cannot exclude the paragraph.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThis Amendment would omit from the Bill specific mention of the Minister's power, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, to make regulations defining the standard of millable wheat. It is essential that someone should have the power to define millable wheat. It is clearly an advantage that it should be in the Bill, and I cannot think there is a better method of doing it than that it should be defined by the Minister after consultation with the Wheat Commission, upon which body there are not only representatives of the farmers, but also representatives of the corn merchants and millers, who are really the people who have knowledge as to what is and what is not millable wheat. It is true that we have perhaps a wider experience and a better machinery for dealing with the milling of a great variety of different classes of wheat, and it may well be, taking it broadly, that there is very little wheat which in one form or another cannot be classed as millable. But there ought to be some limit, at any rate. Clearly, it would be highly improper that there should be no check upon this matter, and it is after consultation with practical people that this decision will be taken. I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
§ Sir PERCY HARRISThis is a very interesting Amendment, and the paragraph is also a very interesting one. It describes the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be defined as millable. If the Minister knows that there can be a definition of millable wheat, I am surprised that he does not define it in the Schedule. I do not know if he is going to take weeks and months using his great ingenuity and intelligence to find a definition, or if there is to be a great variety of samples. Are we to have boxes of samples all over the country to show what comes under the category of millable wheat? I have taken considerable trouble to inquire about this expression "millable wheat." 603 I am assured that you can hardly say there is any wheat which is not millable in some place or other if the miller is willing to grind it into flour. With steel machinery and American methods, I am assured that 90 per cent. of British wheat is not suitable to go through the mill, but, if it is a matter of a country mill, with old-fashioned methods, practically all the wheat that is grown could be turned into flour if there was a man willing to grind it. The whole thing is pure camouflage. The Minister is under no delusion. He knows that the wheat is not fit to be turned into flour, and the wheat that is going to be bought will only be bought to enable the farmer to go through the form of getting his certificate to earn his money under the Bill.
I think the mover of the Amendment is justified in saying to the Minister, "Either define what you mean in the Bill, so as to be fair and just to all concerned, or leave it out." If you cannot define it in words intelligible to the ordinary public, do not keep up this pretence. The whole of the Bill is pretence. The quota is pretence. There is to be no quota. The Minister knows that as well as anyone in the House. There is to be no quota of English wheat used in British flour or bread. This is an ingenious contrivance in order to get round difficulties which the Minister discovered when he tried to get consent to a quota Bill. But I think this great House of Commons, with its great traditions, should not keep up these pretences. If you are going to use words of this kind, suggesting that you can define millable wheat in clear language, put it into the Act of Parliament. If not, drop the words altogether.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENThe hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), in moving the Amendment, suggested that there was practically no wheat of non-millable quality. If that is the case, what is his worry? I am going to oppose the Amendment, because if there is no wheat of non-millable quality there is nothing for him to complain of at all. If wheat of a low grade is included, you will lower the average price obtained for the wheat, and it will mean an increase of the amount to be found by the millers, and it is for that reason that I strongly oppose the Amendment.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSI have a certain measure of sympathy with the Amendment of say hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), because I doubt whether in practice you can, in words, give a definition. I should find it very difficult, to give a classical example, to define an elephant, but we all know an elephant when we see one. That is equally true, I believe, of millable wheat. On the other hand, we have to recognise what happens in Canada. I remember being in a grain station in Canada and seeing that they were able, in fact, to grade wheat of certain standards. I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the technicalities to say whether the Canadian practice can be introduced here. I am all in favour of standardisation where it is possible. I was for 18 months the Chairman of a Committee known as the Central Committee on Standardisation and Simplification, and one was always impressed there by the immense practical difficulties of introducing a standard. Probably what the Minister has in mind is to define the standard of wheat by a price test, because if you have a price test you can probably solve the problem. One knows what is up to a certain standard without difficulty when he sees it. If the standard were to be prescribed by some reference to price and the price for a particular quality of wheat was so much per cent. below the general average price then prevailing, it might be a convenient means of saying what wheat was not millable because it was not of sufficient quality to justify the higher price. It is to be noted that the Minister is not compelled to prescribe the standard. It only says, "may," and, so long as he regards the matter as something which he may do and not something which he must do, we shall not be troubled as a result of the paragraph.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be some words in order to define what is known by millable wheat. I can understand the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) wanting the deletion of the paragraph, because he, representing the farmers, wants 100 per cent. of the wheat produced to be regarded as millable for quota payment purposes.
§ Sir J. LAMBI did not make that claim at all, and I hope that the hon. Member 605 will not say that I did. I said that there were varying qualities and that the varying qualities can be met by the first payment made by the miller. I did not claim that all wheat of whatever quality should be given the standard price.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI should not reflect upon the hon. Gentleman's political sagacity by suggesting that he did make use of those words. I think that it is clearly understood that we are always more important for what we do not say on matters of this kind than perhaps for what we do say.
§ Sir J. LAMBI do not make that claim.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIn any case, the right hon. Gentleman has already informed us that his expectation is that approximately 85 per cent. of the wheat produced in this country can be regarded as millable. The case must be based upon some past experience, and 15 per cent. being non-millable clearly suggests that there must be a definition of a kind. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman failed to co-operate with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who apparently, has been Chairman of the Committee on Standardisation and Simplification. If the hon. Member for South Croydon with his genius for devising simple words, would co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman, how much easier it would be to deal with the Bill.
I agree that there are certain qualities of wheat, not all of which is sold for the purpose of bread making. It must be recognised in advance that approximately 90 per cent. of the wheat for which deficiency payment will be made will be consumed by poultry or as cattle food and for purposes of that kind, and the right hon. Gentleman is at least obliged to define what the term "millable wheat" implies; otherwise, obviously, 100 per cent. of English-grown wheat, a very small proportion of which is embodied in bread flour, will be entitled to receive the deficiency payment. While we shall move in a later Amendment that certain additions be made to paragraph (a) so that the definition of millable wheat shall be a much clearer proposition and better understood, we are convinced that the Sub-section as it stands is absolutely essential, or else 100 per cent. of the 606 wheat grown in this country will be regarded as wheat entitled to the deficiency payment.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSI am delighted to hear that the Minister is not going to accept the Amendment. The Amendment goes a little too far. I am convinced that unless the public are assured that the wheat to be used in the quota is of some use for flour, the Bill will not last very long, and for that reason I hope that the Minister will stick by this particular part of the Bill. I do not wish to seem to be rebellious in any way, but I think that we ought to get some very clear definition before the Bill leaves us as to what is wheat of a millable quality. It is most essential that that should be stated, if possible. It surely cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the whole of the wheat growers and millers of the country and the lawyers to define what wheat is fit to be made into flour. It would be a most useful thing to find out before we leave this part of the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) rather made a mistake. He talked about samples in little boxes. I am not a wheat expert, but samples of wheat are not put into little boxes like tin toys from Germany and that sort of thing. The hon. Member will find that wheat samples are put into little paper packets or little canvas bags or something of that kind. I do not wish to seem to be instructing him in what is happening, but I think that he rather made a slip. I hope that the Government will stand out on this occasion against the Amendment, although I realise that there is something in it.
§ Sir J. LAMBI should like to make a correction. I was misunderstood or misinterpreted, I do not know which, when was said that I had stated that all wheat was of the same value and should be entitled to have the deficiency payment on the same scale. I did not say that. I said that all wheat varies. It is quite true that, although you may, and can, give to yourself, on sight, a definition as to what the varying value of samples might be, you will find it absolutely impossible to do so in words. The Minister said that the millers, and, I believe, the dealers, would do so. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. 607 Williams) said it would take lawyers to do so. It proves to me more than anything else that the paragraph should be eliminated if we are to have lawyers to say what is and what is not millable wheat.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI apologise sincerely if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman opposite. I had his speech very much in mind when I mentioned lawyers. It is necessary to have lawyers to convert the matter into the technical terms of the Bill. That is the use of lawyers. The use of experts of another type is to try and prove what is millable and what is not, and therefore I should like the opinion of the hon. Gentleman opposite in certain circumstances.
§ Mr. ROSBOTHAMI anticipate that the difficulty that will present itself to the Wheat Commission will be the condition of the samples, and I would suggest that the words "condition to which" the wheat must conform would perhaps be better.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEI hope the Minister will consider putting in some other definition, or some limitation of the power with regard to fixing the standard of millable wheat. There ought to be some limitation of the power to fix and define what is millable quality. I know that it is a very difficult thing to define and that it is almost impossible to put it into a Bill, but I think that some effort ought to be made to do it. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that this was not a wheat quota Bill. He must remember that the Minister lays down each year the amount of wheat that is to qualify for the deficiency payment, and that only a definite proportion of wheat grown in this country will qualify.
§ Mr. HENRY HASLAMI associate myself with those who have argued that it is a rather dangerous thing to prescribe a standard in set words in a Bill. I cannot help thinking that it would be much better to leave out paragraph (a) and to allow the trade itself to work out the standard. Although I recognise that we must have restrictions in the Bill and that we must have officials and control, I desire the control to be as small as 608 possible, because I believe that that would be in the best interests of the farmer, the miller, and all concerned.
§ Amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next three Amendments cover similar points, and I think we might take the discussion on the first Amendment.
§ Sir STAFFORD CRIPPSI beg to move, in page 17, line 18, after the word "prescribing," to insert the words:
by reference among other things to the moisture content.The object of the three Amendments is to point out certain very important considerations as regards the standard of wheat of millable quality and, if possible, to get them inserted as limitations upon the Minister's power as prescribed in paragraph (a), and, secondly, to secure a statement from the Minister as to the lines upon which he proposes to work out the definition of millable wheat. The whole of the Bill, starting from the second line of the first Clause, is based upon home-grown millable wheat. It is not based upon our giving a subsidy for wheat as wheat, but only upon millable wheat. As we understand the term "millable," it does not mean wheat which it is possible to mill, because it is possible to put any wheat through the mill, but wheat which is fit for the ordinary operation of making flour from the wheat. There are a great number of wheats which vary in their fitness.
§ Sir J. LAMBThey would all make flour.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSOf course, it is possible to make flour from any wheat, if you spend enough money on doing it, but in many cases it would be wholly unremunerative and the flour would not be fit for the ordinary purposes of baking.
§ Sir J. LAMBYes.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSThe hon. Member says "yes," but I am sure that he is wrong. If he will study the books which deal with the baking of British flour, and the enormous number of patent specifications which have been taken out for devising methods by which that wheat can be made into flour fit for baking purposes, he will 609 appreciate that it is not an entirely simple proposition to make certain types of wheat really fit for the production of flour for ordinary purposes. If you use the term "flour" as it is used in this Bill to cover wheat meal as well as flour, the proposition is an entirely different one, because you can use any wheat for the purpose of making wheat meal. It is merely the process of grinding the wheat into a meal, just as you make barley meal from any quality of barley. When one comes to consider this Bill and the importance of defining what is millable wheat, it becomes apparent that the right hon. Gentleman will have to lay down some very precise regulations in order to define the standard of the wheat that will be useful for the purpose of limiting the subsidy. The introduction of the word "millable" is designed to limit the subsidy to a certain class and type of wheat of a specified standard.
11.30 a.m.
The first Amendment which we suggest is that there should be a reference, among other things, to the moisture content. That seems to us to be very fundamental and of extreme importance. The price which is given for wheat depends to a considerable extent upon the moisture content. That is the reason why wheats in this country which are sold early in the year fetch lower prices than wheats sold later in the year, because later in the year a considerable portion of the moisture has evaporated. The wheats are far more fit for milling when they become dry, more like the Canadian wheats, than when they are damp in the autumn. There is another question in regard to moisture, and that is that we do not desire the farmers to get a subsidy on water. It is bad enough that they should get a subsidy on wheat, but we do not want them to get a subsidy on water. If there is no limit on the moisture content the price that the farmer will get for his wheat per cwt. will be partly a price for wheat and partly a price for water.
§ Sir J. LAMBThat is so in beer now.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSIt is so also in strawberries to the extent of 98 per cent., but the people do not mind that. It is remarkable in regard to wheat that you get variations of water content. Threshed 610 wheat and wheat in the rick vary from 10 and 12 per cent. up to as much as 20 per cent. If the wheat is sold in the autumn and it contains 20 per cent. of moisture it means that, unless there is some regulation that that wheat is not of millable quality, in effect the subsidy will have to be paid on a greater amount of wheat in order to make up the price to that of the wheat of drier quality. If there is 20 per cent. of moisture in the wheat the price in the open market will he lower, and unless there is some limitation as to the amount of moisture the subsidy will have to make up the deficiency in price which is due to that excess of moisture. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter serious consideration, because we look upon it as one of the greatest importance.
It has a bearing upon the marketing of this wheat. We do not want there to give any encouragement to farmers to market their wheat when it is most wet, when it will be heaviest. If the price is to be made up by the subsidy whether the wheat is wet or not it will obviously be to the advantage of the farmer to market his wheat wet. At present he does not do so because he hopes to get a higher price when it is dry in the spring months, but if the price is going to be made up by the subsidy, whether it is wet or dry, there will be an inducement to the farmer in the first months of the cereal year to sell as much of his wet wheat as he can, because he will not suffer by the fact that there is excessive moisture in it. That is the first point.
The second point we raise is in regard to the dry gluten content which is a characteristic most important for the purposes of baking. It is by the dry gluten content that the ordinary tests of wheat are made as to whether it is fit or not for making an upstanding loaf, and we suggest that one of the things which should be laid down as a standard for wheat is that it should contain a, certain dry gluten content, because that is the content with which a baker is accustomed to deal, and by which he recognises good millable wheat or bad millable wheat, or wheat which is not millable at all.
The third criterion which we suggest is the presence or absence of what may be called diseases of certain kinds. There are certain wheat diseases, such as rust, smut or fungoid disease, which definitely disqualify it for millable purposes, and 611 we suggest that one of the criteria which the right hon. Gentleman should lay down in arriving at the standard to which wheat must conform is that it should be free from disease. If he is going to allow diseased wheat to get the subsidy as millable wheat he will not be putting pressure on farmers to keep their wheat free from disease.
These are the three main points which we desire to see raid down in the specification which the right hon. Gentleman is going to make, but no doubt he will tell us further points he has in mind by which he intends to specify the standard. What we ask is that in any event these three important points should be included, and included in this Sub-section in order that it may be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to specify them when he comes to make the order under this Subsection.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThese Amendments deal with three particular points—moisture content, dry gluten content, and rust, smut or other fungoid disease. A good deal has been said about the moisture content. In the first place, there is really no wheat which does not contain moisture in some degree or another. It has been suggested that a farmer will endeavour to sell his wheat in a wet condition. In practice, as I understand it, that is exactly what he does not do, because, obviously, he gets a lower price for it. Of course, farmers are not going to do anything of the sort.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWhat I said was that, although farmers might get a lower price, it would be made up by the subsidy.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe better the Wheat when it is sold in the open market the better the price the farmer will get for it and, therefore, the higher his reward. The lower the price the less reward he gets. What we are all seeking to arrive at is a standard description which will be such that men of judgment in the market place will be able to apply it. That is the practical consideration. The last thing the Committee should attempt to do is to place any definite standard in the terms of the Bill. There will be differences of opinion as to what is or is not proper millable quality wheat, but there will be 612 local market committees in each district, and if there are disputes these committees which will be composed of practical farmers and merchants and millers and should be able to judge whether any particular sample of wheat is or is not in accordance with the usual market practice of the past. The danger of attempting to put in any kind of definition is very practical.
Take the Amendment which deals with rust and smut or other fungoid diseases. Rust is not identifiable in relation to the grain and the Amendment omits any reference to bunt, which is most objectionable. It is only in practice and in the hands of practical people that these things can be made a success. It is intended that the standard of wheat should be defined in terms which will include all wheat which is at present accepted as millable, but this will naturally exclude seconds and tail wheat which is not properly cleaned, and which is definitely objectionable in character. While all these questions will no doubt have to be taken into consideration I hope the Committee will realise that they will be considered by practical people who have been conducting this industry all their lives and who will continue to operate this scheme in a free market. They are not going to give any individual a price which the sample does not merit. There is an incentive to farmers to present their wheat in the best possible condition both as to cleanliness and quality because it will command the best price in the market. Working in conjunction with the scientific research department and ascertaining the best class of wheat for certain classes of land, the farming community will have a direct incentive to produce the best quality wheat. I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSSurely the right hon. Gentleman's speech has consisted of many contradictions. He says that we ought not to tack on these three conditions because the people engaged in this business know their job and are practical people, and then he suggests that it would be absurd to invite them to make a definition with reference to the points in the three Amendments. Surely these things are defined in day-to-day transactions now by practical people. All that we are 613 inviting the right hon. Gentleman to do is to continue to expect that the practical people who will be the determining factor as to what the consumer of bread has to pay, should take into consideration the known variations in the quality of wheat at different seasons of the year. Two things stand out. One is the water content, which on 27,000,000 cwts. may amount to no less than 1,350,000 cwts. The consumer of the bread is going to be called upon to pay a subsidy on that colossal quantity. At least we are entitled to invite the practical miller and the practical farmer to take into account the known factors that exist in this trade.
The second point is this: The right hon. Gentleman must know that farming, broadly speaking, is not a business but a mere gamble [Interruption]. Every practical farmer in this House will agree with that statement. More often than not it is a gamble and not a business, because of the farmer's lack of decent marketing methods and that kind of thing. The farmers make their own industry into a gamble, because they fail to follow the needs of the moment with regard to organisation. If the farmer is as badly off as many hon. Members would have us believe—we do not deny that many are down and out—if they can secure a guaranteed price of 45s. a quarter, whether they sell immediately after July or in the following April, May or June, they are going to sell their wheat when it has the highest percentage of water content. That is going to result in just what the right hon. Gentleman ought to be attempting to avoid. An odd farmer here and there will hold up his wheat to April or May in order to get a higher price and to get something beyond the guaranteed 45s. by what he conceives to be good selling, but a very large proportion of the farmers will sell as early as they can, knowing that that 45s. is guaranteed to them.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSSurely there is a guarantee that the price to be received will be 45s. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. gentlemen opposite have read the Bill. Whether the guaranteed price is 45s. or not, certainly 45s. is intended to be the mean price. It may 614 be possible to receive slightly below 45s., but for every 1s. received below that figure by some farmers, others will receive more. Therefore the average guaranteed price is 45s. under the terms of the Bill. Whether the farmers sell at 25s. with a load of water or at 35s. with water diminished, will make no difference to the average farmer. Forty-five shillings or round about 45s. will be received by that farmer at the end of the cereal year. Our point is that in any case reference ought to be made to water content and gluten content and smut and rust and other fungoid diseases. We say that the right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice unless be accepts these three Amendments, so that the Committee concerned will have all the facts before them.
This Amendment ought to be accepted, because behind it will be an insistent demand for the farmers to market their wheat properly. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really want to see arable land successfully and economically cultivated, they will have to help by any means at their disposal to superimpose marketing conditions upon the farmers, so that instead of the gamble to which I have referred there will be sensible methods of collecting and selling their produce and an average price for all the farmers will be obtained pretty well throughout the year, apart from any variations that there may be because of mechanisation and the old horse methods. We are making a very nice present to arable farmers, and that is sufficient justification for the Minister and his followers to help the farmers to help themselves by defining in the Bill what is intended to be millable wheat. We are inviting the Minister to safeguard the consumer and to safeguard the farmer, and we are inviting the farmer to adopt better methods of farming.
§ Colonel RUGGLES-BRISEI hardly think that the hon. Member can have meant seriously that farming is a gamble entirely due to the farmers' lack of marketing methods. It must be obvious that in a country with a system which we have operated now for three generations, whereby the whole of the world is invited to send to us its agricultural products, which may be raised under any conditions of labour—
§ Colonel RUGGLES-BRISEThen I shall address myself directly to the three Amendments. I invite the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to consider this point: Let us assume for the moment that the three Amendments were incorporated in the Bill. It would mean that every single sample of wheat produced in this country and offered to a registered grower to rank for the deficiency payment, would have to be subject to analysis. It would have to be analysed for gluten content, moisture content, and it would have a different kind of examination for rust, smut and fungoid disease. Does the hon. and learned Member seriously suggest that that is practical? Does he mean that the small registered grower who is perhaps producing only a few quarters of wheat on a small holding should come within this proposal and that there should be separate analyses of a little parcel of wheat of that sort for all these various purposes? If the Amendments mean anything, they mean that such analyses would have to take place, which is, of course, absurd.
On the question of moisture regarding which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol spoke at some length I would remind him that there are certain practical limitations in that respect. It has been said that the wheat sold soon after the harvest has a higher moisture content than the wheat which has been kept in the stack for several months. There is, however, a limitation to the amount of wheat which can come on the market during the period when the moisture content is highest. There are practical considerations which limit it. One is that the number of threshing machines available in this country is limited. Frequently, farmers desire to thresh a considerable portion of their wheat or other cereal crops but are debarred from doing so by the limited number of machines available. That is one limiting factor. There is another. In the barley-growing districts most farmers are anxious to get on to the market with their barley rather than with their wheat, because the best barley market obtains normally in October and there is always a scramble to thresh bar- 616 ley at the time of year when the moisture content is high, rather than to thresh wheat.
There is a further limiting factor. If the registered grower intends to put in a reasonable breadth of wheat for the following spring, he is busy in October and early in November preparing the land for sowing that wheat crop. I notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite smiles, but I can claim to have first-hand knowledge of this subject and I say that that is a serious limitation in regard to threshing the wheat and putting it on the market. Automatically and in practice, apart from some early threshings of wheat out of the field in harvest-time, the generality of the ordinary wheat threshing then is really for the purpose of obtaining seed wheat for the next season. Therefore the proportion of the wheat crop which is normally marketed in the autumn months for milling purposes is not very large and I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman or his colleagues need be alarmed that there will be a great rush on the part of British growers to thresh the whole of the wheat crop at that time of year. It it also to be remembered that the deficiency payment will not be available to them at that time. Only the ordinary market price which they would be getting to-day will be available at the moment at which they deliver their wheat. They have to wait, possibly some months, for the interim payment, and a further period before they get the final payment. There is going to be no additional inducement in the Bill to make any farmer try to thresh his wheat earier than he does to-day, in the ordinary way.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to argue that the farmer will have an inducement to market his wheat in any condition, and not to bother as to the price which he will obtain for any sample. I think that one of the best features of the Bill is that it leaves an absolutely free market in wheat such as obtains to-day. When the Bill becomes an Act there will be just as much inducement as there is at present, for the farmer, when he takes a sample to the market, to try to obtain the last 1½d. a quarter that he can squeeze out of millers or merchants. I do not think there is any argument to show that the farmer will be made careless in the marketing of his corn or that he will be content to 617 take a lower price. On the point as to millable quality, surely there is this governing factor. Is a registered grower going to be so foolish as to run the risk of losing his certificate that his parcel of wheat is of millable quality? Obviously, under the Bill he is going to take more care to dress up his wheat properly and to give good delivery than he has ever done before. For all these reasons I think these Amendments are quite unnecessary and I conclude by repeating that were they to be incorporated in the Bill the logical consequence would be that there would have to be analyses of every single parcel of wheat large or small.
§ 12 n.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI wish to answer one or two of the points which the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) has raised. I, too, have some experience of farming. I farmed for 10 years and I was brought up on a farm, so that I have some slight knowledge of the growing of wheat as well as of other crops. The hon. and gallant Member must appreciate that the logical conclusion of his argument is that it is impossible to lay down a standard of mill-able wheat because whatever standard—[Interruption.] I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was against it when there was a call for the "ayes" and the "noes," but he must appreciate that, if a standard is to be laid down—and the Committee has now decided that a standard is to be laid down—then it must be a standard which eventually will have to be tested as regards every sample. Everybody knows of course, that what actually happens is that the test is a visual one, except in cases of doubt and that the only appeal to this standard, in any circumstances, will be in cases of doubt. If the purchaser says "I cannot give a certificate to this wheat because it does not appear to be millable wheat" and if the farmer says "I demand a certificate because it is millable wheat," the question will then be decided, no doubt, by that local committee which is being set up to arbitrate in such matters.
Nobody suggests that every sample of wheat is to be analysed for water content or gluten content or anything else. A man who is skilled in buying wheat tests the moisture by feel and by sight. He tests the gluten content by the dryness of 618 the sample, the quality of the wheat and the actual description of the wheat, so that the difficulty does not really arise of a chemist with all his apparatus having to go to every little holding in order to test whether or no the wheat complies with these regulations which define the standard. Only in cases where there is doubt or where a dispute arises between the farmer and the purchaser as to whether a particular sample is millable or not, will the question have to be decided according to some standard which is to be laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The matters referred to in these Amendments are generally accepted as being matters concerning that quality in wheat which relates to its possible use as milling wheat. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon said that the wheat used for milling purposes was not threshed, as a rule immediately after harvest. He appreciates, of course, that "wheat used for milling purposes" has nothing whatever to do with "millable wheat." They are two completely different propositions. It may be that the whole of the seed wheat is millable wheat and the subsidy would be paid on the seed wheat just as much as on wheat of any other sort.
It is no argument to say that only seed wheat is threshed immediately after the harvest. Probably some of the best wheat will be used for seed and therefore that wheat would be the most likely to qualify as millable wheat. Suppose that the net result of this Bill is to make farmers on the average less careful as regards moisture, or let us assume that you get then some viciously minded farmers who like to put the hose on their wheat, to take an extreme case, in order to raise the moisture content. You may then have a set of circumstances in which the average moisture content of the whole crop goes up, let me say, by one or two per cent. There is a slightly more moist crop as a result sold, as a whole, some of it being drier and some of it more moist. The net result would be to put a very heavy burden on the consumer on the average, because out of the 27,000,000 cwts., there would be one per cent. more of moisture to be paid for in subsidies, and if the subsidy comes out at 5s. per cwt., or whatever it may be in the particular year, there will be that extra subsidy to be paid. The crop, in other words, will be 619 artificially raised in amount, and whereas it is estimated by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, that last year the number of cwts. was 20,200,000, in the figures that he gave us for the 2s. 7d. that would have been the subsidy price per sack, if that had been one per cent, more moist, you would have had 20,400,000 cwts., and, therefore, there would have been a subsidy paid on the greater weight.
It is that feature against which we are anxious to preserve the consumer, and I cannot see the difficulty in laying down a standard of moisture, if any standard is to be laid down. I see the difficulty about laying down a standard, but I am assuming that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he said and lay down something as a touchstone to which in cases of dispute you can refer. Of course, millers cannot and will not mill wheat with more than a certain amount of moisture in at the present time, and if the touchstone is to be whether wheat is millable, that is, fit for the mill when it is sold, I cannot see any difficulty in laying down a standard of moisture. There may be a discussion as to whether it should be 12 per cent., 15 per cent., or 17 per cent., but I cannot see any difficulty in making a standard.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us absolutely no indication as to how he will lay down a standard. He has not told us whether he will take the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that he should have a price standard, or whether he will say, "I set up Mr. Jones, and everything that Mr. Jones passes is millable wheat," or whether he will have the object for which the wheat is used, or whether he will have a visual standard or the standard of a certain nose to smell it with. All that we are suggesting is that he should at least adopt this moisture content principle, because that is material to the consumer, and as the right hon. Gentleman has given us no possible indication that the consumers' interest will really be protected, we shall certainly press the Amendment to a division.
§ Mr. ROSBOTHAMSome of the difficulties that hon. Members opposite are anticipating will not arise, because the threshing machine will be a safeguard. It will not take the grain until it is fit to mill, and the farmers have to 620 keep their wheat until it is dry enough to thresh. With regard to rust and fungoid diseases, farmers to-day are fully alive to the advantages of science and research to avoid these troubles and to grow the beef varieties of wheat. Here again the threshing machine is a safeguard, because if you put your wheat through it in a damp condition, with smut in it, it will come out black, and therefore the sample will not be millable corn.
§ Mr. TINKERI do not claim to have the knowledge of this subject possessed by some of those who have spoken, but I cannot understand why there should be all this objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. After all, if these things cannot happen, there will be no liability on the farming community. All the arguments against the Amendment have been to the effect that what we suggest cannot happen, yet this Clause is to give the Minister powers for the protection of millable wheat. We are asking for those powers to be somewhat extended, so that if this gluten and other impurities get into the wheat—[Laughter]—I am not an expert on this subject, as I have said, but all the time we have been arguing to protect the consumers. We have never argued with a knowledge of the wheat business such as is possessed by some hon. Members opposite, but we are arguing that the Minister should have the fullest possible powers to protect the consuming community.
If that is so, why should there be so much agitation and excitement on the benches opposite in saying that these things cannot happen and will not happen and that they are all, as it were, Simon Pures and will never attempt to take advantage of anyone? I have listened to most of the arguments on this Bill and have found that hon. Members opposite have all the time been trying to get something more out of the people, and because of that, and because we cannot altogether trust the farming community, or the whole of them—I do not want to put all of them in that category, but, as in other great societies, there is a certain percentage of them that will attempt to do wrong if they get the chance—we move this Amendment for the purpose of protecting the good farmer against the bad farmer. I shall, therefore, be glad if this Amendment is pressed to a Division.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI wish to draw attention to the extreme satisfaction with which many of us listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who told us of his experiences as a, farmer, which were undoubtedly very considerable. He then went on to build up his illustration. Presumably experts always do that from what they have experienced in real life, and the hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a delightful picture of the farmer who would use the hose on his wheat. When his opposition is reduced to that kind of absurdity, I think it is carrying it beyond the bounds of reason.
§ Sir J. LAMBI do not wish to impute motives to hon. Members opposite, but one would think, from what they have been saying, that they are boosting the sheet iron trade, because in future apparently the public will have their wheat delivered to them in buckets instead of sacks. I would like to support the Minister, but I cannot help thinking that if he had accepted my previous Amendment, he would have saved himself a great deal of trouble. What is happening here to-day is what happens often in public bodies. You set up a committee to do a difficult matter, and then you say, "We will commence to do it ourselves". You have given the Minister a most difficult thing to do, and to put into words what he is going to do, and now you are making it far more difficult for him to do it.
Mr. PRICEI cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. There is no procedure in it dealing with this question other than there is in various trades in the country. The farmers are not the only people who are called upon to give a standard of quality of an article at a price. It is no new feature. Surely, if the agricultural community come to this House and ask for public money to be provided by the working class people who buy bread, we are entitled to suggest that the standard of wheat upon which the subsidy is paid shall be a standard which is in essence practical for milling purposes. One would draw the conclusion from the objections raised to these Amendments that this was a new feature in trading. How many other industries have to provide a. definite standard of article for a definite 622 price, and if that standard is not provided prosecution can take place Surely hon. Members do not look upon the proposals in these Amendments as asking anything more from the farmers than a large part of the British trading community has already got to provide, namely, a definite standard article for the price they receive? I should think that there is more reason than ever, when a trade comes to this House and asks for Government subsidies, to impose a condition that if we are to pay this money out of the pockets of the poor, then we should call upon the farmer to provide a definite standard article.
There are any number of cases which come under the analytical control of the county council in which articles have to be analysed and brought up to standard, or the trader is prosecuted. I do not see in the least, particularly where public money is to be paid, why the condition should not be imposed of a definite standard of millable wheat which can reach the loaf. I do not suggest for a moment that farmers are dishonest; I do not think that they differ from anyone else in the least, but this is a proper condition to impose. There is a moral obligation upon this House that if we give away public money in the form of a levy on the poorest people of the country, we have a moral right to see that the article is up to a, certain standard of quality. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendments call for nothing which is new. There are thousands of traders to-day in the British Isles trading under similar conditions where they have to put an article of a certain standard on the market, and I do not see why we should not call upon farmers to do the same thing, especially in view of the fact that they are being given a public subsidy.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENI would ask hon. Members on the Benches above the Gangway whether they realise that this Amendment would add considerably to the price which would have to be paid for the flour and the bread of the poor people whom they are trying to protect?
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted".
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 197.
623| Division No. 124.] | AYES. | [12.19 p.m. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Groves, Thomas E. | McEntee, Valentine L. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grundy, Thomas W. | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Price, Gabriel |
| Cape, Thomas | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Thorne, William James |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Hirst, George Henry | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, George | Jenkins, Sir William | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley> |
| Edwards, Charles | Lawson, John James | |
| George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) | Logan, David Gilbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Lunn, William | Mr. Cordon Macdonald and |
| Mr. John. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pybus, Percy John |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Harris, Sir Percy | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Ramsden, E. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ratcliffe, Arthur |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Howard, Tom Forrest | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Robinson, John Roland |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Bernays, Robert | Iveagh, Countess of | Rosbotham, S. T. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Kimball, Lawrence | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Broadbent, Colonel john | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Leckie, J. A. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y) | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Scone, Lord |
| Browne, Captain A. C. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Levy, Thomas | Simmonds, Oliver Edwin |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, Cltv) | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Chalmers, John Rutherford | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n) | Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Christie, James Archibald | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Colville, John | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Mabane, William | Soper, Richard |
| Cook, Thomas A. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Cooke, Douglas | Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | McKie, John Hamilton | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. |
| Cross, R. H. | McLean, Major Alan | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Stones, James |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Strauss, Edward A. | ||
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Magnay, Thomas | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Dickie, John P. | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Donner, p. W. | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Drewe, Cedric | Marjoribanks, Edward | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Templeton, William P. |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Martin, Thomas B. | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Elmley, Viscount | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Train, John |
| Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Moreing, Adrian C. | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Moss, Captain H. J. | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Munro, Patrick | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Normand, Wilfrid Guild | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | North, Captain Edward T. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Nunn, William | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Womersley, Walter James |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Palmer, Francis Noel | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Greene, William P. C. | Pearson, William G. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Penny, Sir George | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Grimston, R. V. | Perkins, Walter R. D. | |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Petherick, M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) | Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Potter, John | and Mr. Blindell. |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. |
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
§
In page 17, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) for precribing a scale of premiums and dockages such as will encourage the production and marketing of the best types and qualities of home-grown wheat and dis. courage negligent cultivation and preparation for the market."—[Mr. D. Grenfell.]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWith regard to this Amendment, I shall be glad if the hon. Member will explain its effect, as I am not quite clear whether it is in order.
§ Mr. DAVID GRENFELLThe idea is that we shall encourage the farmer who consistently produces good wheat by paying him a premium, and discourage the negligent farmer who does not produce wheat of a high quality.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member propose that these premiums and dockages shall form part of the deficiency payments?
§ Mr. GRENFELLYes, it is part of the scale.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThen it is inconsistent with the decision that the Committee has already taken. It is already decided that every registered grower shall be entitled to receive a deficiency payment in respect of every cwt. grown by him, and we cannot alter that now.
§ Mr. GRENFELLThis will not necessarily increase the amount of deficiency payments. It will only mean that the deficiency payments will be apportioned between the same lot of people, but will give a special reward to the most deserving farmers. I can quote the authority of Dr. Addison, whom hon. Members opposite are fond of quoting, although when he was in the House they paid no attention to him.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is getting away from my point. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, the Committee have decided that every registered glower shall be entitled to receive a deficiency payment in respect of every cwt. of millable wheat grown by him. The hon. Member now wishes to alter what the registered grower would be entitled to, and I think that that is contrary to the decision of the Committee.
§ Mr. GRENFELLIs there any reason why a registered grower, having qualified for his deficiency payment, should not get an additional sum by way of bonus? There is nothing in Clause 1 to say that the farmer who grows good wheat should not get, in addition to the deficiency payment, a premium for a high standard of cultivation.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat would necessitate recasting the whole financial provisions of the Bill which had already been agreed to by the Committee. I am afraid that the hon. Member is out of order.
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
§
In page 17, line 34, after "1921" to insert the words
to the Flour and Bread Prices Committee to be appointed under this Act, and."—[Mr. Attlee.]
§ Mr. ATTLEEI understood that it was to be called, for it has reference to a proposed new Clause. Is it not possible within the scope of the Bill to provide for any control over bread prices? Similar proposals have been inserted in other Bills, and I think that in the Marketing Bill there was a proposal of this kind. I should like to know exactly why it is outside the scope of the Bill.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have given very careful consideration to this Amendment and the proposed new Clause relating to it. I have concluded that the proposed new Clause introduces a new principle, which, although it may be cognate to the subject matter of this Bill, is yet too fair beyond what has been agreed to by the House on Second Reading for me to be able to admit it without an instruction from the House.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out the words "approved by the Treasury."
12.30 p.m.
We feel that the Treasury all too frequently lay their dead hand upon the activities of various Departments with are desirous of improving the services, and that in no case can the Treasury be a useful addition to this Sub-section. If 627 the Wheat Commission is capable of making regulations such as they are required to do under this Bill, they are able to deal with any moneys which may for the moment be in the Wheat Fund, and we see no reason why the Treasury should interfere in these transactions. We are not pleased with some of the actions of the Treasury, and we think that they ought to be entirely eliminated from any part or lot in this Bill.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI cannot accept the Amendment. This Sub-section carries out the procedure which is based upon previous experience in such matters as the Electricity Commissioners and the Coal Mines Welfare Fund, which is very much in the nature of a levy. The Sub-section requires that certain regulations of the Minister shall be approved by the Treasury, and we think that it is a proper provision in regard to regulations which deal with the banking and investment of the Wheat Fund, the form of accounts to be submitted by the Wheat Commission, and the form of accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI am sorry that the Minister cannot accept this Amendment, finding himself so tied and bound by precedent. In our view the interference of the Treasury with other Departments has been carried a great deal too far. We think the Ministry of Agriculture ought to be capable of looking after these financial matters. Its finance branch is not used simply because, on every occasion, the Treasury intervenes. [Interruption.] I overhear an allusion to the Post Office, and that, of course, is the strongest case of all, but it is not exactly on all fours with this case. We are setting up a body which may eventually develop until it exercises national control over the whole of the wheat business, and I do not think it ought to be brought under the Treasury or that the regulations should have to be approved by them. The matter ought to be left entirely in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture.
§ Mr. DAVID MASONI hope that hon. Members opposite will not press this Amendment. After all, we are not quite prepared to nationalise the wheat industry of this country, and any protection which may come from Treasury control 628 ought to receive the support of hon. Members, especially if it leads to economy. Surely the Treasury knows something about finance. If not, why are they the Treasury? Any protection of the ordinary taxpayer is surely to the good. The Treasury can only interfere when they bring some expert knowledge to bear upon a question before the Commission, and I cannot see that any case against the Treasury has been made out. The conditions imposed by the Treasury make, as a rule, for economy and the avoidance of waste and extravagance. They exercise a controlling hand on all other Departments, and their whole traditions support economy and efficiency. Those who are enthusiastic supporters of some particular scheme may complain at times of the restraining hand of the Treasury, but I think it is desirable to have this provision in the Bill. If it had not been in the Bill one would have expected hon. Members opposite and many hon. Members here to suggest control by the Treasury. If I may refer to an Amendment which I have put down to the Schedule, I am asking there that all regulations and by-laws should be subject to being annulled or approved by a vote of this House.
§ Mr. MASONYes, I did not propose to develop that point further, except to say that this proposal is in harmony with the desire of the House to retain its own rights over taxation. Anything that will give the Treasury some restraining influence upon the action of the Wheat Commission and various other outside bodies must surely tend towards economy and efficiency.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. D. GRENFELLWe wish to put forward some objections to this Clause and to express our regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendments moved from this side of the Committee. They were put forward with the intention of making the Bill more workable and of giving the Minister the power which he himself seeks in this 629 Clause. He is asking for power to maintain the quality of wheat and to keep records and accounts and to make regulations connected with the payment of the wheat quota, and we wish to give him more power, and regret that he will not accept the generous help which we extend to him and the confidence which we would place in him. We ask that the Minister should have power to maintain the quality of millable wheat at the highest possible standard. Millable wheat means one thing to-day, but if the quality improves, as we hope it will, the standard may have to be changed, and we wish the Minister to have power to take such steps as will maintain the very highest standard. We regret, also, that the Minister has not seen his way to prescribe conditions regarding the moisture content and the gluten content.
I wished earlier to refer to Dr. Addison, and I am sorry that I did not get the opportunity of commending his opinions to the Committee. Hon. Members opposite who were very reluctant to accept his advice when he was a Minister will now listen to his views. He was all for improving the standard of agriculture, and for encouraging the individual farmer to improve his tillage and methods of working. Unfortunately, Dr. Addison is now outside this House. In the last election the crop reaped by the National Government contained much rust and smut and fungoid diseases, and good mill-able wheat failed to find a political market. Dr. Addison is a sample of the good wheat that was rejected, because a high standard of millable wheat was not maintained. We hope that in future the political harvest, as well as the agricultural harvest, will improve, and that we may have the advantage of the presence of men like Dr. Addison in this House when this Measure becomes operative.
§ The Minister knows quite well that this is not the last word on this matter. We wish he had kept to himself and to this House the power of making the changes which will be necessary in years to come, and regret that the dead hand of the Treasury has been introduced. I cannot agree with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), who is, perhaps, the only Gladstonian Liberal left in the House,—a distinction for which he need not apologise. But, really, his economic theories are out of date. When it comes to urging us to accept the dictates of the Treasury, we really cannot follow his advice. We contend that in this Measure the Minister has asked for certain powers, but we do not think that he has asked for enough. We recognise that when the Minister is given more power this House has more control, but when these powers are removed from the Minister the control of the House is removed as well. Who is there in this House who believes that we have any real control over the Treasury. For these reasons, we should have been very much happier if the Minister had accepted our Amendments. We believe that this Clause will be very difficult to work, and it would have been much improved if our proposals to give the Minister more control over the Wheat Commission had been accepted. I am aware that the Clause will be adopted as drafted, but because our Amendments have been rejected, because we believe that it does not contain all the safeguards which the Minister requires and does not secure the maintenance of a high standard of cultivation which is the main object of the Bill, we are opposed to it.
§ Question put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 30.