HC Deb 25 February 1935 vol 298 cc811-41

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £73,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including Grants and Grants-in-Aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and Grants, Grants-in-Aid, loans and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, cultivation, improvement, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, co-operation, and marketing, fishery development; also for loans for the purchase of herring drift nets and assistance in respect of expenditure on fitting-out herring drifters; and sundry other services.

5.10 p.m.


This supplementary estimate for £73,000 has been rendered necessary owing to the recrudescence of foot-and-mouth disease. It is also submitted in order that formal authority may be given for the inclusion under the head of the Fisheries Department of sundry expenses and receipts under the Whaling Industry Act, 1934. That is a new service. Except for this variation in expenditure the receipts of all the subheads which they cover would have shown a net saving. The original provision of £35,000 for foot-and-mouth dis ease is an arbitrary figure which is provided each year in respect of this service. Any substantial recrudescence of the disease in any year involves an expenditure largely in excess of that amount. A sum of £120,000 is included in the supplementary estimate for this purpose. During a single financial year in the past the expenditure has varied from £19,000 to a sum on one occasion of over £3,000,000. I do not think it is necessary to go further into the matter, but, if any hon. Member desires more information, I shall be ready to give it in my reply. The cause of foot-and-mouth disease is a little obscure. All we can do is to watch most carefully and stamp it out most vigorously wherever it appears; and to carry on with research for the purpose of discovering if we can the fundamental cause of the disease. All these matters are now being carried out.

The new provision necessitated by the passing of the Whaling Industry Act, 1934, comes under Sub-heads P 1 and P 2 of the Fisheries Department. This does not involve the nation in any expenditure since the sums paid out are more than covered by the receipts. It is interesting to note that this service, which carries out the convention signed at Geneva as long ago as 1931, has owing to the difficulty of finding a responsible department been hung up until 1934. It is run largely in conjunction with the Board of Trade. It means that I, as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, have to explain and be responsible for a service covering whaling in the Antarctic, involving log books printed in English and Norwegian and a survey of ships which for many months in the year touch no land at all.

It is a good thing that the convention was signed, and we should do our utmost to see that it is observed. But the slaughter of these gigantic creatures has reached tremendous and, I think, unfair limits. More than 20,000 whales for instance may be slaughtered in a single season, and no respect is being paid to breeding stock or an economic use of the carcases secured. There was, and indeed still is, a serious danger of the extermination of these creatures altogether. I do not think that the extermination of any species of living creature is a worthy object of humanity, and it is very desirable that any action we can take should be devoted to preserving the breeding stock of animals or creatures which are in themselves harmless and may be made very useful to trade and industry.

When I said that the extermination of any species is not a worthy object, I was perhaps speaking too hastily, for under another sub-head of savings will be found savings of some thousands of pounds on account of the dealings of the Ministry with the Colorado beetle. The supplementary estimate runs from whales, the most gigantic of living things, to these beetles, which were found squashed under wood by a Ministry inspector at Tilbury Dock. I do not wish to enlarge on the extremely interesting story of the discovery of this infestation of the Colorado beetle and its stamping out by the skill of the Ministry's staff, with the co-operation of the public and of the local members of the National Farmers' Union, but it was a feat in protective entomology which has very few rivals in the history of that service, as far as I have been able to find from the records. It has been a remarkable achievement of protection, by scientific service, against a pest which might have devastated great regions in this country, and all credit is due to those in the civil service and to members of the public who co-operated, for the action taken, so far as we- can see, has enabled us to proclaim a. clean bill of health for this country in respect of the dreaded pest of the beetle.

There are several other sub-heads. There is one which will no doubt bring joy to almost every member of the Committee, an expenditure which arises from the fact that farmers are repaying more swiftly than was anticipated loans to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, that is loans under the Agricultural Credits Act which come back to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The Treasury allowed the premature repayment of such loans, and they have increased considerably during the last few years. There is a decrease in the provision for land drainage grants owing to the fact that many schemes have been put forward on a loan basis instead of a grant basis, and that one or two important schemes have been deferred. There is a decrease of £21,500 in the agricultural education grant. I am happy to say that it is merely an apparent decrease. It is due to an exceptionally wet month, with the result that the building of the Royal Veterinary College proceeded more slowly than was anticipated. But, of course, the sum originally budgeted for will be required in the long run.

Those are the main heads. One word upon the saving of £2,800 for the Market Supply Committee. That is due to the great public spirit of Lord Linlithgow, who served for seven months without any remuneration at all, on the ground that being largely occupied with the India Committee it would be impossible for him to give as much attention as he would have desired to the Committee; and when he took up a salary for the post he took it up at a rate lower than that provided by the fund. I would pay tribute to the public spirit of which, in this and many other things, I as a Minister have had to take advantage, in the case of people, very busy and overworked, who have given time and trouble to public work without grudge. There is a small item relating to the fitting out of herring drifters which is a little lower than was expected, though the service in respect of the provision of nets is a little higher than was expected. These are the ordinary work of administration, which in some items are less and in some items more. As I have said, the fundamental reason for this supplementary estimate is the larger expenditure on foot-and-mouth disease. That, of course, is an act of God against which no provision can be made.

5.22 p.m.


I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.

In the first place I would like to associate myself with what the Minister has said in congratulating an efficient staff upon the progress in stopping an invasion of the Colorado beetle. I remember well that when I was at the Ministry we had to schedule an increased area in France from which importations were prohibited, owing to the rapid extension of this pest, and I am sure we must all be congratulated that, so far anyhow, though the danger is ever present, the beetle has not found a lodging in this country and has been so successfully dealt with by the Department and others concerned. On the point of the increased expenditure on foot-and-mouth disease I am sure that no one feels more than the Minister that it is a complete discredit to this country that we have not got beyond the present barbaric methods of dealing with the disease. It is a tragic thing that a man may have spent a lifetime of infinite care and labour in getting together a fine herd, and that when there is the accident of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease he has to witness the horrible spectacle of all his lifework being made into a bonfire. It is a terrible condemnation. I am not upbraiding the Minister because he has to make this expenditure. It is the law, and this is the best that can be done at present.

But there is no allowance here for one thing. I find from reports that have reached me that in some districts a considerable number of skilled agricultural workers have been thrown out of employment because of the recent epidemic-, and I would ask the Minister to be good enough to make particular inquiries into these cases. We ought to do something special for these highly skilled men who lose their life's work. In relation to this subject I have studied some documents, including the report of the Agricultural Research Council, which was issued as a Parliamentary paper a short time ago. Apropos of that, I notice a serious diminution in a number of heads shown on page 12 of this report, and it is about that that I would like to say something. I see that the Agricultural Research Council discussed the fact that hitherto although, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, there has been a special provision for research within limits for the past eight years, we have not hitherto made any real gain; and they go on to make this emphatic observation: The saving of expense to the country"— that is by continuing expenditure on a proper scale for the elimination and prevention of foot-and-mouth disease— would be so large as to compensate for the additional expenditure upon continuing the investigation even over a long term of years. I ask the House to turn to the contrast shown in this estimate. There is an item of £132,000, of which £120,000 is for compensating people whose animals have been burned, and on the other side you see a saving on the agricultural research grant of £5,650. I know what it is, and I am not going to blame the Minister. Of course, he is the head of the Department and has to take the blame. But it is the Treasury. This is the hand of the Treasury on the Department. I remember the struggle I had with Lord Snowden to get an additional £100,000 for agricultural education. The first thing that happened when this enlightened Government came in was that it cut most of that expenditure off and the increased grant for research suffered the same fate. In this connection I see that reference is made to the delay in the completion of the Royal Veterinary College. It was discreditable enough in all conscience that the nation allowed this vital institution to get into the state in which it was. When I come to look at this matter further it appears that the real reason why there is a saving of £20,000, or whatever it is, this year, is that owing to the economy campaign the grant of £150,000 for which I obtained sanction from Lord Snowden has been split up and advanced in pieces. That is why the building is not any further forward; it is the result of the economy campaign.

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some of the terrible risks we are running by our serious neglect of this vital matter. I do not think it is a matter for congratulation that we can show these savings in agricultural research and education. It is a disgrace. Here is one disease alone for which we are asked to find £120,000 to-day. Then take swine fever. For that the amount is £10,000. Turning to the account of the Agricultural Research Council to see how this money has been spent or what is required, I see they say that there should be extensions of the research and investigation service at the different colleges, and that in addition there should be an investigator who would devote his whole time to swine fever. Not one of those things has been done, and we are sacrificing £10,000, not so much on people whose pigs nave been burned, whilst we are refusing to allow the small increased expenditure of one-tenth of that amount on the work the Research Council recommends.

Possibly the worst part of the story which is placed on record here is in regard to agricultural education, and I hope that those who are interested in that subject will obtain the valuable and interesting report to which I have referred. One finds from reading it that the hand of the Treasury is over all this business from start to finish. The number of research scholarships, for instance, is trivial. These scholarships were designed to enable promising lads or young women to be trained at our higher institutions for research work. We find that only five of these scholarships have been provided—a paltry figure for a great country like this. It is owing to the economy campaign that they have had to be curtailed. We are told that we cannot afford even five.

It is true that there appears to have been, shall I say some repentance, in connection with this matter owing perhaps to the representations of the Agricultural Research Council because I see that out of their own limited resources they provided two in 1932. I suppose that they were so ashamed of the shabbiness of the Government that although they had only £6,000 at their disposal, they provided these scholarships out of their own funds. I ask the Committee to note these figures. The Agricultural Research Council got £5,000 in 1931–1932 and they got £6,000, with an additional £2,000, in 1933. Yet owing to the smallness of the advance which we have been able to make in research, we are this afternoon voting no less than £132,000 as compensation for the burning of animals. We have to pay that money because, for years, we have neglected the necessary steps to provide, in the first place, the people who can conduct re search, and, in the second place, for the research itself.

It is by means of these scholarships that we shall ultimately recruit men and women competent to carry on research work. By curtailing them we are turning off the tap which controls that very necessary supply, and the result inevitably will be grievous loss to the nation. A short time ago, owing to the kindly suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture, I acted as president of the commission which dealt with eggs and poultry. I see that the Ministry's research institution at Weybridge is referred to several times in this document and there is a polite series of suggestions as to more staff being required and more research being needed, first for this and then for that purpose, but at the end of it all we find a reduction in the Vote. Here is a section of the agricultural industry in which, according to the estimates given to the commission by experts, there is an annual loss of £3,000,000 a year. That is a staggering figure. I myself subjected the witnesses to prolonged cross-examination upon it but they stuck to it and on the whole I think they produced good evidence to show that it was a fair figure and that £3,000,000 a year represented the loss from disease in this one section of the industry. And there is one worker at the Weybridge institution engaged on this section of research and some of his time has to be given to the routine examination of specimens. That is the position in face of a £3,000,000 annual loss.

I wish I could congratulate the Minister, not upon the diminution of this Vote but upon doing what I am certain in his heart he longs to do, what he would rejoice to have the 'opportunity of doing, namely, putting this research work on a proper footing and providing these institutions with the facilities for research and training for which they ask. I know that it is the Minister who has to bear the blame but there is not a Member of this Committee who is not aware where the blame really lies. It is the paralysing hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is the cause of all this, and because of it we are to go on paying £100,000 a year in compensation for burning animals while we refuse to provide those facilities. So long as we refuse the facilities so long shall we have to pay the compensation. I find, further, that we have saved £5,000 in respect of small holdings and allotments. I well remember the saving made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on this item. We had, with great difficulty, made a start in connection with this work and a committee had been brought together under the then Lord Mayor of London, Sir William Waterlow.


On a point of Order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to address the Chair in order that we may hear what he is saying?


I am sorry if the hon. Baronet has not been able to hear me, and I shall endeavour to remedy that matter. I was referring to the reduction in the allowance for smallholdings and allotments. It arises of course out of the policy initiated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Under the previous Government we had made a start, with a committee which was presided over by the Lord Mayor of London and with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was associated, in trying to get allotments for unemployed men, on which they could put in their spare time growing food for themselves and their families. This they were doing with great success but one of the first things which the present Government did in the name of economy was to dismiss the staff and disband the small committee which had been got together by the Lord Mayor of London and turn the work over to charity. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall and some of his friends are loyally and steadily doing their best to atone for the neglect of the Government. But it is a disgraceful thing, when we have hundreds of thousands of decent men who are unemployed and who would be glad of allotments, glad of the chance to get bits of land on which to grow vegetables for their families, that this service should appear on this Vote in connection with a reduction of £5,000.

I now come to the last item which I wish to criticise. It will be observed that so far my criticisms—except that in regard to foot-and-mouth disease—would have been more in order if I had been entitled to move an increase instead of a reduction, but not being entitled to move an increase I have to make my points in this way. The other item to which I refer is that of £44,000 reduction in respect of drainage. I do not know in detail the schemes which have been delayed and which account for this reduction, but the real point of the matter is that the Government are not getting on with the work of drainage except in a piecemeal fashion. There is scarcely any sort of undertaking which would provide more useful work and be more remunerative to the community than drainage work. There are drainage schemes which I know, were prepared with great care and plans have been in existence in some eases for many years past. I do not know, for instance, what is being done in the case of the Great Ouse. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will tell us. I remember that when I was at the Ministry the details—the specifications almost—for the first section of that great scheme were ready and it could have been proceeded with a long time ago. There are other drainage schemes which were ready then nearly four years ago and which would have provided work for nearly 20,000 men apart from those indirectly affected.

It is true that in the case of the Upper Thames and in a few other cases a certain amount of progress has been made. There is the Weybridge scheme which was really sanctioned before the right hon. Gentleman came into office. But in the main there has been a standstill order with regard to the more urgent requirements in this respect and the big drainage schemes, since this Government came into power. I expect that just about now we shall find the same kind of floods occurring in Somerset as those to which they have been accustomed now for some years. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall came up in the train from Exeter the other day, he saw floods such as I have seen myself on many occasions. No doubt we shall see photographs in the newspapers of poor people paddling to their houses and children being taken to school in canoes and we shall hear the same stories of drowned pigs and chickens. We have the same kind of thing going on every year, simply because these grants are being withheld in the name of economy. We have these great schemes, not raising any party issues and undeniably required which have been worked out with meticulous care; and in a large number of cases they are not proceeded with because we are under the impression that we cannot afford them. That is the only reason.

If one could only peep behind the scenes and get a glimpse of the memoranda which have passed from time to time between the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury, I think one would find that he has been expressing the very sentiments which I am now expressing. He would doubtless present his views with greater freedom and more force but I am sure they would be one the same lines. It is a discredit to the nation at the present time in view of the tremendous losses which the industry is suffering from disease that we should be confronted with this Vote asking us on the one hand to pay vast sums for compensation and on the other hand presenting us with a series of cheeseparing savings mainly at the expense of the schools and the research staffs and the grants for research. I am sure that in his own heart the right hon. Gentleman as a man with scientific training is ashamed of it but he has to put the best face he can upon it. Finally, with regard to the provision of work, we must deplore the evidence which this Vote shows that little energy is being displayed in the prosecution of long-needed drainage enterprises. On those various grounds, I beg to move this reduction in the Vote.

5.45 p.m


The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) began his speech with, what some of us know as his more modern aspect. He began with a pretty little picture of the agriculturist who had spent his whole life in private enterprise, successfully building up an industry of the very best and most modern type. Having done that, he got tired of pointing out the good in private enterprise and went on to one of the old hack speeches, abusing the Minister up hill and down dale because he was not spending enough on research. If you really want to get good research, you ought not to have Government departments handling it. Wherever you touch agriculture in this country, you have always had very little results, comparatively speaking—although we get very good results sometimes—from Government research; the whole of the best results have come from private individuals working privately.

Dealing with the question of foot-and-mouth disease, the Minister seemed to regard the enormously increased amount of it this year as an act of God. I have always been very unhappy that civilisation, research, and knowledge as we know them to-day have no better means of dealing with this disease than the mere killing of so many cattle here and there. I think there are many people, however, who deprecate merely regarding this disease as an act of God, rather than devoting a proper amount of money to research on a big scale in order to see if it is possible to cure it. I would like to see if it is possible to find a cure for this disease, and I was very disappointed that the Minister this afternoon did not lay more emphasis on his desire, which I believe is there, because he is essentially progressive, to find some new remedy for the disease. If he were to. ask for 40,000, £50,000, or £100,000 for definite research on this question, I think the House would give it with the very greatest willingness. I certainly would support' such a proposal.

The right hon. Member for Swindon attacked the Treasury, but the Treasury has not shown any great severity so far as these estimates are concerned. We have a continual sequence of supplementary estimates, and that would not have been the case if the Treasury had been as hard hearted as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. I would like to remind the Government that on this particular supplementary estimate there are one or two headings, such as "Travelling and removal expenses," which refer purely to administration. Twenty years or any considerable time ago, if an estimate of this sort had been presented, we should have had a Treasury representative sitting in this House, and the Treasury would have been criticised for leniency and for not looking better after the public purse.

In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the quite extraordinary work which has been done with regard to the Colorado beetle, on which the Minister can justly congratulate himself and his Department, but in this matter of the destruction of pests I would like to know whether it is not possible to carry it a little further. Of all the pests which are affecting agriculture at the present time, particularly in Scotland and the west country, the rabbit is the worst, and if the Minister could find some means of eliminating the whole of the rabbits as efficiently as he has dealt with the Colorado beetle, I am sure he would increase the productivity of this country enormously. If he came here for money for such a purpose, I would certainly support him. Although I have been a little critical of his expenditure a great many times, I think he has done agriculture a very great service in some of the research which has been worked out, particularly with regard to the Colorado beetle, but I wish he would carry it further with regard to some of the other pests. Some people might say that there are other pests affecting agriculture, such as officials, for instance.

5.52 p.m.


Infinitely much the most serious point made by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) was his comparison between the sum alleged to be lost every year through diseases of livestock, namely, £3,000,000, and the small amount of research that is being done. [An HON. MEMBER "That was on poultry alone!"] Then it must be much larger with regard to animal diseases in general. I should agree with the right hon. Gentleman partly on that large figure of losses, and I hope that the Minister in reply will be able to reassure this Committee as to the amount of research that is being done. We know that very large losses arise from poultry, foot-and-mouth, and other animal diseases, and I think the Committee, before it arrives at a decision on this Vote, seeing that there are savings with regard to grants and grants-in-aid for agricultural research, would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, within the limits of what may be proper on this occasion, whether he is satisfied that as large efforts are being made in research in these matters which affect the farmer so vitally as are reasonably possible, in order to try to get to the bottom of the causation and cure of these diseases.

The other point that I should like to make is in connection with the saving on small holdings and allotments. I do not know whether the smallish saving of £5,000 is with regard to the particular grant which the Ministry estimated that it would be making to help unemployed men cultivate their allotments, or with regard to the account for small holdings in general, but I think the Committee would like, to know, in case the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon may have created a contrary impression, that although the Government has lessened the grant that it made originally, and has thrown a large amount of the burden on the Society of Friends and the means of the well-disposed and charitable public, yet there has not been any reduction in that admirable work of helping the unemployed men owing to lack of money. The Government has at any rate, in its offer of £5,000, been able to supplement private beneficence, and the unemployed men have not gone short. At any rate, that is to some extent satisfactory. The point as to whether the grant ought not to be extended to cover the part-time holdings, which are now maintained only by private grants and the efforts of the Society of Friends and others, is another one, which probably would be out of order, but I think the Committee will be glad to have some reassuring statement, if the Minister can make one, with regard to the amount of research into diseases of livestock in general.

5.55 p.m.


I hope the Minister will go more into detail with regard to the anticipated saving of £44,000 on land drainage and tell us whether this saving has been brought about because the work was not necessary. I do not know much about some parts of the country, but I certainly do know a little bit about south Yorksire, and I can tell this Committee that there is plenty of room for a good deal of money to be spent on land drainage there. In the area in which I live, namely, the Doncaster area, you have a scheme that has been in preparation for a good many months, anticipated to cost more than £500,000, and it is being held up because there is a difference of opinion between the Minister and the local authorities with regard to the amount of grant that should be paid by the Government. It is rather remarkable that my right hon. Friend the Member ifor Swindon (Dr. Addison) piloted through this House the Land Drainage Act of a year or two ago, and made it plain that when that Act became operative it would be possible for large grants to be made to drainage boards in order to get on with very necessary work.

In the Doncaster area you have a huge area waiting to be drained, with the people living almost in fear of what is likely to happen when heavy rains come. They have not forgotten what took place last year and the year before when many of them were confined to their bedrooms because the water was almost up to the bedroom window; and they are anxious to know what is going to take place with regard to that scheme of work. When we come to realise that here there is an anticipated saving of £44,000, I think that amount and other amounts 'could be spent on very useful work, and not only would it relieve the anxiety of thousands of people in that area, but it would find useful and productive work for many men who are out of work and willing to do it. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee in detail where he anticipates saving this amount on land drainage, and why, and give us some assurance that the work in the Doncaster area will not be held up for want of money.

5.59 p.m.


I should like to raise the question of the national stud. I am very glad indeed to see that there is a saving on the national stud. It is absolutely ridiculous that it should be in Ireland, and it is not fair to leave it there. There are very few mares going to that stud, and last year there was a very big loss on it. We have in this country a, great number of vacant stud farms, which might very easily be used for a national stud, and that would obviate the difficulty which the Minister has always said lay in removing the stud from Ireland to this country. If it were over here, it would be earning profits, and the time has now come, in my opinion, to make the change and bring the national stud to this country.

May I refer to a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison)? I had the opportunity this year of going round all the higher education centres and universities, and I agree with him that they are doing a great work. Would a larger grant for research, however, really have saved the foot-and-mouth disease situation? I am a member of the Friesian Cattle Society and for some years we have been desirous of making an importation of cattle. We have been all round the world to try to find a country where there was no foot-and-mouth disease, and the only countries we found were South Africa and Canada. All the other countries have research departments, and some spend more than we do on research, and yet they have never discovered the secret of evading this plague. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman was putting the case a little unjustly when he assumed that the whole of the £120,000 required for the slaughter of diseased cattle is due to the fact that there has been a cut of something like £5,000 in the amount spent on research.

6.2 p.m.


When I saw among the anticipated savings a figure of £44,000 on land drainage grants, and when I found that the whole of the original estimate was only £68,000, it struck me as an amazing situation. One would imagine that land drainage in this country was in the best possible position, and that it was not necessary to spend any money on it. I do not know whether that is the situation in other parts of the country, but it certainly is not the situation in that part of the country where I live. For years land drainage in South Yorkshire has ben a tremendous problem, and for years we have been making attempts to deal with it. When the Land Drainage Act went through in 1931 it looked as if we had at last reached the position when something would be done. We have the power, but we have not the money. We have been approaching the Minister for many months with a view to getting grants for this very necessary drainage work.

On at least three occasions the people in Bentley 'have been flooded out. Hundreds of houses have been flooded, some from 18 inches to as much as eight and nine feet, and the floods have stopped for weeks. In addition, hundreds of acres of agricultural land have been flooded. That has happened three times, and as I came over the river this morning I saw that it was again very full following the heavy rains of the weekend, and people are nervous about what is likely to happen again if the rain con tinues. Yet we cannot get money to deal with it. Everybody knows that the work has to be done, and everybody speaks of its urgency. It has been known for years, but money is lacking. The people are subject to this terror of being flooded again because they cannot get the money for the drainage work. In spite of that, the Government can save £44,000 out of an estimate of £68,000 this year. In view of this, what does the Minister intend doing? We have been negotiating with him for a long time, and, to put it plainly, the authorities concerned are falling out as to who is to pay.




At any rate, there is a dispute. The Ouse Catchment Area Board, which draws its money mainly from local authorities, is the body responsible, but the Minister is supposed to make grants and he has promised to make one. The amount to be spent on this one scheme is £525,000, but the Minister has promised a grant of only £100,000, and the local authority says that that is out of all proportion.


The local authority accepted it.


It is true that the Ouse Catchment Area Board accepted the grant when it was offered in the first place, but the board complained from the beginning that the representation on it was not what it should be and that those places that had to pay most had the least representation. It protested so successfully that the Minister agreed that the representation should be altered and made more in accordance with liability of the authorities who have to find the bulk of the money. The new board, which better represented the various interests, promptly turned down the grant which had been offered by the Minister, and we have been arguing since then about who is to find the money.


The board attempted to rescind the resolution by which it had accepted the offer. If that could be done, it would make local administration impossible. Why should not any local authority be able to rescind any acceptation it has made?


The Government do it, and have just done it.


Why authorities do not do it in every case is because, in the majority of cases, they are satisfied with what the Minister offers.


The hon. Member cannot have had much experience of local authorities if he says that.


I will put it another way. They accept the Minister's offers without any question, but in this case the board has not done so. It thinks that the Minister's grant is so small that it has turned it down. The situation now is that we are in danger any day of being flooded again. We have thousands of miners unemployed in our neighbourhood, and if this controversy were settled and if this huge scheme could be got on with, it would provide necessary work for people in the district. In view of the saving in this estimate, does not the Minister really think he could do more in this particular case? If both parties are to remain standing on their dignity, nothing will be done. I hope the Minister will take the initiative and offer a grant which the local authority can accept. If the Government can save £44,000 on this item, I do not think the Minister can argue that he is short of money for necessary work.

I was surprised to find that the main reason why the Ministry of Agriculture is asking for more money is the destruction of animals suffering from foot-and-mouth and other diseases, for which £132,000 extra is required. Ever since I have been in the House the question of spending money on research work in regard to foot-and-mouth disease has been discussed. It struck me as ironical that, while our cattle have suffered from this disease so badly this year as to call for another £132,000 to be spent on their slaughter, we can manage to save money in the direction to which ultimately we shall have to look for a remedy for the disease, namely, agricultural research and agricultural education. There is a saving on agricultural education of £21,500, on grants for agricultural research £5,650, and on grants-in-aid for agricultural research £1,500, on improvement of livestock £2,000, and on destructive insects and pests £1,950. In face of the tremendous ravages that this disease is making on cattle, is this the time to save money in directions to which sooner or later we shall have to look for a remedy? I notice that there is a saving of £5,000 on grants-in-aid on the smallholdings and allotments account. I have had many complaints from people and -organisations responsible for running allotments about the meanness of the Government and in consequence the difficulty which they have to provide allotments and the necessary tools and seed. They are always short of money, and that appears to me to be ironical, in view of the saving of £5,000 in this direction, which hits the worst type of unemployed.

6.14 p.m.


I should like to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) with regard to the flooding in South Yorkshire. I do not agree with them that the grant which the Minister has offered is unreasonable. When other parts of the country have to be considered as well, the grant is not unreasonable, but it is an impossible situation for the Ouse Catchment Board to be able to create a standstill order, as it were. I should like to know whether the Minister is keeping in close touch with the Minister of Health as to the steps he will take in conjunction with him to deal with the flooding which is bound to occur, if not shortly, at any rate, in the next year or two. Nothing is more certain than that the floods we have had in Bentley during the last four or five years are going to occur again, and probably at an early date, and I should like to know if the Ouse Catchment Board are to be allowed to hold up the work of straightening out and cleaning out the Don, and what steps the Minister of Agriculture will take, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, to deal with the very dangerous situation that may arise and the menace to public health if the floods are repeated.

I cannot help thinking that this Debate has got a little out of proportion owing to the stress which the Members of the Labour Opposition have laid on the amount of money spent on compensation for foot-and-mouth disease. Listening to their speeches, one would imagine that foot-and-mouth disease was the most expensive and the most devastating with which agriculturists have to deal; but that is not the case. I would like the Minister to tell us whether any of the money spent on research is devoted to mammitis or contagious abortion, which are very much more serious diseases affecting cattle than foot-and-mouth disease. The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has very unfairly, I think, used this expenditure of £120,000 as a weapon with which to beat my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. He has tried to show that it is because the Minister saved money on research in different directions that he has been compelled to spend this £120,000.


I never said or suggested anything of the kind. I know far too much about it. I have struggled at the Ministry myself. What I say is that until we go out to encourage research we must necessarily be landed in great expenditure for compensation, and I blame the Government because they are discouraging research.


I have no wish to misinterpret the views of the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot help feeling, in spite of his explanation, that he did try to use this expenditure of £120,000 as a criticism against the saving on research. The problem of foot-and-mouth disease is a comparatively simple one. There is a great deal of knowledge about foot-and-mouth disease. Anyone who has been on a, farm, as I have, where foot-and-mouth disease has been in existence and where the cattle have not been slaughtered knows perfectly well that it is a simple complaint, as simple as influenza in an ordinary human being. The only thing which this country has to decide and has decided in the past, is whether we want cattle which have foot-and-mouth disease to be allowed to recover, which would mean our always having foot-and-mouth disease in the country, or whether, by a. policy of slaughter directly an outbreak is detected, we wish to keep the country comparatively clear of the disease; and I, personally, think that increased expenditure on research into foot-and-mouth disease would be an entire waste of money. I would very much rather see the money spent on research into very serious disease such as mammitis and contagious abortion.

6.20 p.m.


I do not want to follow the last speaker, but it struck me that all the disease referred to in his speech make a call for the expenditure of a larger sum of money on research. I think most Members will agree that it is only such lines that we can hope to eradicate the disease affecting agriculture. I understand that a. sum of £30,000 has been alocated for land drainage in Glamorganshire. According to the provincial Press to-day, there is some opposition to the expenditure of the money, and to the scheme as a whole, on the part of the landlords in that area. I wish to know whether the Minister is going to stand for that. I might also add that when the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was referring to all kinds of pests it seemed to me that the most singular pest from which we are suffering, particularly in Glamorganshire, are the pests to which I have referred. It would seem that from them alone are we having any oposition to this land drainage. The Minister will know that in that area are many persons who have been unemployed for some years. Of all people miners are, perhaps, the most practical men for this kind of work. Apart from their strength, they are the type of men who could be most profitably engaged in such work. We have periodical flooding of the Ogmore River. I do not know whether that river and the Ewenny river are to be cleansed as well. Flooding is very prevalent. I hope the Minister will tell us what is being done.

6.22 p.m.


Referring to what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) said regarding land drainage in the South Yorkshire area, I would like to know whether the Minister has placed any limit upon the time within which the authorities in those areas must accept the offer of £100,000 and get on with the work. It appears to me that the local authorities and the Board are quibbling as to whether they should accept this figure, while all the time the people in that area are suffering because the work is not being put in hand. As hon. Members have already said, there is a great possibility of further suffering being inflicted on that area as a result of the recent heavy rainfall. If the Minister has not already suggested a time limit within which the authorities should accept the figure named, will he fix such a limit, in order that they may realise that they must accept it now or suffer the consequences? In my humble opinion not only would that be a very effective line of action, but it would result immediately in the healing of the many local breaches that exist over this matter. In view of the accusations made by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) and others about the "cuts," I would ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to tell the House exactly what proportion these various savings would have assumed under the £700,000 economies at the expense of agriculture which the Opposition had themselves prepared prior to leaving office in 1931? It would certainly be helpful, because it would show us how sincere they are in their opposition to this Vote to-day. As to the £120,000 paid out as compensation for foot-and-mouth disease, I would urge on the Ministry to take into careful consideration the great differences between one breeder of cattle and another. Many men starting with a small income have built up an industry only to have it completely destroyed by this disease. I should like to know whether, as the result of research, there is to be any alteration in the policy pursued in respect of foot-and-mouth disease.

6.25 p.m.


I am sure that we can have no complaint to make about the reception of the Vote by the Committee, except the complaint, with which we are not unfamiliar, that the Committee have pressed upon us the necessity of spending more money. I do not think there was one speaker who did not stress the desirability of further expenditure, and I was very interested to hear that even from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It is true, I think, that the Committee are anxious that there should not be any starving of the essential services which come under this Vote, and I am perfectly ready to take that not merely as a general expression of opinion in favour of more expenditure but as an anxious desire to ensure that in the industry of agriculture, upon which so much talk and, indeed, so much money has been lavished we are not spoiling the ship for a halfpennyworth of tar by small economies which will only lead to greater expenditure later. I hope I can give the Committee an assurance on that point. The savings on research and matters of that kind are largely deferred payments, and the money will be spent at a later date. The big saving of £21,000 upon the Royal Agricultural College is also merely delayed and is not taken away from that College. The saving of £5,600 under Subhead G 5 on agricultural research is largely due to deferred payments on capital grant to the School of Agriculture at Cambridge, under the Rockefeller scheme, due to deferring the rebuilding of the farm buildings.

In general, I may say there has been no starving of these essential services on account of a desire to show small savings against the other items on which we have over spent. It has been said, "That is all very well, but the services in general should be developed to a greater extent. The development of research should be pressed on much more vigorously, because larger sums may be spent on it with advantage as a remunerative investment." It would be out of order for me to go into those questions at any length on this occasion, but there are certain items, such as foot-and-mouth disease upon which it is very difficult to say that a large immediate expenditure of £100,000 would produce any very substantial results. As the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) well knows, in many scientific matters direct frontal attack is by no means so effective as a flanking attack in some other corner of the field. We are working here upon a virus disease, and one in which we have not yet been able to detect the causal agent. It is so exceedingly minute as to baffle all attempts to trace it under the microscope or by the ordinary methods of scientific identification.

It may very well be that the key to this is not to be found in our veterinary laboratories at Weybridge and elsewhere, but during the investigation of cancer, or as a result of the work being carried on in Scotland or at Glasnevin in Ireland, into the diseases of potatoes; or, it may be, as a result of the work of the Agricultural Research Council at Hampstead or of the inquiry into the problems of immunisation being carried on at another of our laboratories. It is quite likely that the secret of this disease may lie in the leaf of the potato, and not in any of the experiments which are being conducted upon the larger animals themselves. Therefore the proposition, "Give me a larger expenditure of money and I will give you a result," is not one which I can put forward on this occasion. There has been no reduction in this research expenditure. A certain level of capital expenditure is inevitable when a long distance programme is being carried out. At the present time an increased expenditure has to be found for Weybridge. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon will be pleased to hear that some of the expenditure there is to be devoted to the investigation of poultry diseases.

I should like to reassure the Committee upon other questions which were raised. There was uneasiness in the Committee lest the expenditure upon smallholdings and allotments were being cut down. I am glad to say that that is not so. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) knows, the actual expenditure on the allotment schemes falls upon the Development Fund and is not provided for by me, and therefore it would be impossible for me to go into it now at any length. The expenditure is not being reduced there, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are doing our utmost to co-operate in every way with the voluntary sources which have made such a magnificent response, and for whose work as well as for whose money, we are very much indebted. As for the saving on that, I will return to it later. The explanation may not be as welcome to hon. Members opposite as they perhaps have thought.

I come for the moment to the question of the drainage grants, which was raised by a number of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) said that the scheme was being held up because of difference of opinion between the Minister and the drainage board, and that I should tell the Committee in detail what is happening and assure the Committee that the work would not be held up for want of money. Another of the Yorkshire Members, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), said that it was clear from the saving of £40,000 that there was plenty of money, and therefore we should go ahead. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) and the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pike) both indicated that what was wanted was to trust the local authority, the drainage board. Those hon. Members all represent Yorkshire constituencies, and that is one reason why I feel that that line of action might not be so effective as one might hope. I have had a long interview with the Yorkshire representatives on this question, and the last thing I should like to do is to hold a pistol at their heads and say, "There is the time limit; take it or leave it. In a day, a week or a month this offer will be withdrawn, and if you do not take this now, nothing else will be given to you." They might use language which might be very derogatory to a Minister of the Crown, and I should not like to put them into that temptation. I am still in hopes that better counsels will prevail.

I am anxious that the local authority should feel that they have been reasonably treated. I do not think that they can complain that they have not been listened to, or that they have been unfairly treated. I base that not only on the fact that the drainage board did accept the resolution, which was a bargain come to between the two sides, but also upon the fact that if I were to give all local authorities grants upon that basis there would be no saving of £44,000, but, instead, a very large expenditure indeed. Why is there a saving of £44,000? One of the large reasons for that is that the money offered to the Yorkshire people has not been taken up. Other authorities are taking up this money, and other schemes are being put forward and accepted which are, in fact, involving commitments for the future. These commitments are not making it easier to come to an arrangement—whenever the arrangement is finally come to—with the Ouse authorities of Yorkshire. I was asked to go into the actual position in some detail. As it is very desirable that we should take the question of land drainage very seriously, I will do so. There were 15 schemes which were put forward, and of these some have failed to materialise. There were 15 other schemes which have been submited, at a cost in all of £500,000, with the result that the schemes submitted or approved for grant are estimated to cost over £1,500,000, as compared with the estimate of £754,000 for the 15 schemes to which I have referred.


Does this grant include expenditure under Section 1 of the Great Ouse scheme?


Section 1 of the Great Ouse scheme has not materialised, so far. I do not wish to press this matter too far, but the work is certainly not being carried out; consequently, the schemes which have veen approved for grant costing £1,500,000 do not include the scheme for the Yorkshire Ouse. The total cost of that scheme was given by an hon. Member as something like £500,000, for which an offer of 20 per cent. was made to the local authorities by His Majesty's Government. There are certain other schemes, for instance, for the Great Ouse and the Derwent catchment areas, for which £4,200 was estimated to be required, but which have been unavoidably delayed, the Great Ouse for technical reasons and the Derwent catchment areas because of legal and other unavoidable difficulties. Out of £50,000, we put down £29,000 for the schemes which it was thought might be submitted during the year, and as regards which no definite knowledge as to cost or duration or the date of application was available when the schemes were under consideration. As a matter of fact, we over-estimated on these services, because we hoped that we should be in a more advanced position than we are, that the local authorities and others would also be further on with their schemes and that we should be able to go forward more quickly. Some of the schemes have not materialised, and therefore there is a saving. Some of the schemes have been transferred. Actually, four of the catchment boards have submitted schemes on a comprehensive basis, and have obtained grants towards loan charges. There have been, as I said, certain delays which are inevitable in the launching of a new service such as this.

When you are making grants towards loan charges, a very large amount of work is involved for a relatively small amount of grant, £100,000 worth of work, paid for by means of loan, on the 30 years' basis, involving expenditure of £5,500 per annum. If you assume, for some of the local authorities, grant of, say, 33 per cent., the Government commitment in a year for £100,000 worth of work done will amount to about £1,800. That is to say £18,000 for £1,000,000 worth of work. It means that although our expenditure looks small, we are, in fact, entering into a commitment which will involve a considerable amount of work being done.


In view of the fact that the position in South Yorkshire brooks no delay, whatever be the attitude which the local authorities, together with the Ouse Catchment Board, have taken up towards the offer of the Government, is it not possible for the Minister to urge them to accept the offer and to carry on with their scheme until such time as either the Minister proves conclusively that his allocation is sufficient or they prove conclusively that it is not? Thousands of houses will be flooded out in the course of the next few months; that will happen anyway, but it will give a great deal of confidence to the local people if the Minister could accept my suggestion.


A certain amount of the work has been going on. Knowing the anxiety of hon. Members upon this subject, I took special precautions before this Debate opened to ascertain the state of the river at the Don Bridge this morning. The position then was that the river was three feet above normal at Doncaster Bridge. Of course, there is speculation at the moment as to whether the river will continue to rise. It is true that a rise of seven or eight inches would mean that the river would begin to overflow into the so-called wash lands which are immediately north of Doncaster and east of Bentley. Although the flood waters would travel northwards there, they would have to rise to a very exceptional height to cause flooding, because before they reached Bentley they would come to the cross bank which the catchment board have constructed since the last flooding, and Bentley itself is further protected by an embankment constructed by the colliery company around the colliery village. All persons concerned are convinced that their position is right, but much neighbourliness is being shown because they recognise their obligations towards the people in the area. Defensive works are being constructed, and even in the case of floods there is every hope that the cross bank will keep the waters back, and that Bentley itself, surrounded by this bank, will be saved from the dangers which have proved real dangers in recent years.

I said I would return before the end of my remarks to the point about the saving of £5,000 on smallholdings. That is the failure of an experiment in collective farming in this country. The attempt was made at Amesbury. Settlers were employed at the current district rate of wages, and they were to receive, in addition, a share of any profits arising out, of the farming operations. It will probably not surprise practical farmers, although it may disappoint many other hon. Members, to learn that so far from there being any profits there were very marked losses upon the farm. In 1931–32, the experiment lost £1,574; in 1932–33, it lost £2,488, and in 1933–34, £1,133. It was felt that it was time that this experiment, which had been showing a loss, should be brought to an end. It represents the end of an experiment in collective farming which showed, contrary to all the advice we had been given, that it was not possible under these conditions for this particular set of men to indulge in collective farming and leave anything over in the way of profits above their own wages to divide among themselves.


Would the right hon. Gentleman amplify his very interesting statement? Could we have something in the shape of a report setting out the story of this experiment—how it was initiated, how it was worked, what have been the drawbacks or disadvantages, and the number of men involved—in fact, all that there is to know about it? I think it has been going for a number of years—I am not sure—and it is only a very sketchy statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made.


I do not wish to go at length into it, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, it would take up too much of the time of the Committee, but I will certainly consider whether a more extended statement can be made, because I do not say that in all cases such experiments are bound to fail, and, as any experiment of this kind must contain very valuable information, it is most desirable, now that we have done so much for land settlement, that we should have all the details possible. The saving represents the selling off of this enterprise and the taking into account of the capital sums. That is the reason, and the only reason, why a saving is shown on this sub-head. I hope very much that, with this information, it will be possible for the Committee to let us have the Vote.


In the original estimate these grants are shown under two heads—(a) relating to schemes promoted by local authorities, and (b) relating to schemes promoted by catchment boards, but the Vote does not say how much of this £44,000 is being saved on each. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us?


I should be obliged, also, if he would give a reply to my question relating to Glamorgan.


I have made such inquiries as I could in the time available, but am sorry to say I have not been able to obtain any information which would enable me to give an authoritative answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I should hesitate to believe that any section of the community would hold up works which would be beneficial to the whole community, and I should hope that there is some misunderstanding in what was stated by the hon. Gentleman. He will realise that I do not wish to commit myself at all, because, not having had notice of his question, I have only been able to make hurried inquiries and am not able to give a full answer.

On the other point, both of these are, of course, local authorities. They are both publicly elected bodies, though they differ slightly in composition. I do not

think I can give, across the Table, the information asked for by the hon. Gentleman as to which actual local authorities have underspent. As far as I know, all the grants that we put down were grants to drainage and catchment boards; there were no grants actually to local authorities in the accepted sense of the term. The hon. Gentleman will realise that local authorities as such—that is to say, borough and county authorities—come rather within the scope of the Ministry of Health, and I did not directly discuss these matters with them. The only local authorities which which I discussed them were the catchment boards and the drainage and water authorities, for these are the only ones which, so to speak, communicate with the Ministry of Agriculture; the others, naturally, communicate with the Ministry of Health. I should think that practically all the underspendings here are in respect of moneys which have been offered to or earmarked for water local authorities, that is to say, the drainage boards, and none actually for schemes of borough or county or city authorities.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £72,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 217.

Division No. 60.] AYES. [7.50 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Maxton, James
Banfield, John William Grundy, Thomas W. Milner, Major James
Cape, Thomas Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen
Cleary, J. J. John, William Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Thorne, William James
Daggar, George Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Leonard, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles Macdonald, Gordon (ince) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter McEntee, Valentine L. Wilmot, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hon, Arthur Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mainwaring, William Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Boulton, W. W. Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Bracken, Brendan Conant, R. J. E.
Albery, Irving James Brass, Captain Sir William Cooke, Douglas
Alexander, Sir William Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Cooper, A. Duff
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Broadbent, Colonel John Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Apsley, Lord Brocklebank, C. E. R. Cranborne, Viscount
Asks, Sir Robert William Brown, Cot. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Crooks, J. Smedley
Assheton, Ralph Brown, Ernest (Leith) Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Cadogan, Hon. Edward Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cautley, Sir Henry S. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Davison, Sir William Henry
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W) Denman, Hon. R. D.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) Denville, Alfred
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Dickie, John P.
Bernays, Robert Chorlton, Alan Ernest Lecfric Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Blindell, James Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D, Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Eastwood, John Francis Leech, Dr. J. W. Ropner, Colonel L.
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony Lees-Jones, John Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Leighton, Major B. E. P. Host, Ronald D.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Levy, Thomas Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Liddall, Walter S. Rothschild, James A. de
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Esienhigh, Reginald Clare Liewellin, Major John J. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Lloyd, Geoffrey Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Savery, Samuel Servington
Fermoy, Lord Loder, Captain J. de Vere Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Fielden, Edward Brockleharst Lottus, Pierce C. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Ganzonl, Sir John McCorquodale, M. S. Skelton, Archibald Noel
Gillett, Sir George Masterman McKie, John Hamilton Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Glossop, C. W. H. McLean, Major Sir Alan Somervell, Sir Donald
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. Maitland, Adam Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Golf, Sir Park Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Gower, Sir Robert Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.) Marsden, Commander Arthur Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Graves, Marjorie Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Stones, James
Grentell, E. C. (City of London) Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Storey, Samuel
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Stourton, Hon. John J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Meller, Sir Richard James Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Grigg, Sir Edward Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Grimston. R. V. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Summersby, Charles H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Tate, Mavis Constance
Hanbury, Cecil Morrison, William Shephard Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)
Harris, Sir Percy Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) Monro, Patrick Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Tree, Ronald
Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Hepworth, Joseph Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Orr Ewing, I. L. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Pearson, William G. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Holdsworth, Herbert Peat, Charles U. Watt, Major George Steven H.
Hornby, Frank Penny, Sir George Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport) Petherick, M. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Pike, Cecil F. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Janner, Barnett Pybus, Sir John Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Ker, J. Campbell Rathbone, Eleanor Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Rea, Walter Russell
Kerr, Hamilton W. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kirkpatrick, William M. Reid, David D. (County Down) Sir Walter Womersley and Dr.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Rickards, George William Morris-Jones.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Forward to