HC Deb 02 April 1936 vol 310 cc2287-302

11.5 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville)

I beg to move, That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, entitled the Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme, 1936, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 11th day of March, 1936, be approved. I do not think the House will have any difficulty in coming to an early decision on the scheme for dealing with this rare and refreshing fruit, The Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme was presented to the House on 11th March and so has been in possession of hon. Members for some time. It may not be necessary therefore to go into much detail but there are a few points which I would like to put before the House. The Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme, 1932, was approved by the House on 21st March, 1933, but failed to obtain the requisite majority at the initial poll of registered producers held in July, 1933. The causes which brought about that failure were that the commodity was subject to violent fluctuations in price, that there were better prices in 1932 and 1933 and that there was a good deal of opposition on the part of the manufacturing interests. All this affected the views of those who took part in the poll. To give one or two instances of the fluctuation of price and to show what now constitutes, in my opinion, the real need for and importance of the scheme, I may mention that in 1931 the price was only £15 per ton; in 1932, it rose to £34 per ton; in 1933 it was £30 per ton, and in 1934 it fell to £12 per ton. In 1935, forward contracts were made at about £20 per ton in January and £14 per ton in the spring. Afterwards the price rose to £20 a ton and during the harvesting period dropped to £10 a ton. The House will thus see the kind of movements which have taken place in price.

According to the estimate presented to the commissioner and generally agreed upon, the cost of production is in the neighbourhood of £22 per ton. It will be appreciated that a characteristic of the wholesale market has been violent price fluctuation and these conditions, namely, the unsatisfactory price situation and the fact that the market has reached saturation point owing to increased acreage, in the opinion of expert growers call for regulation by a marketing scheme. The proposal to promote a scheme was intimated to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland but in view of the fact that the previous scheme had been turned down and acting on the principle of "once bitten, twice shy," my right hon. Friend directed that a canvass of producers should be made before the scheme was promoted. That is not a statutory safeguard, but a Ministerial safeguard. On this occasion, remarkable unanimity is shown not only among the raspberry growers but also among the manufacturers concerned and the scheme was accordingly promoted. During the statutory period of six weeks in which objections can be lodged only three objections were remitted for inquiry by a commissioner appointed for the purpose under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. Certain of these objections related to the principle of all schemes formulated under the Marketing Act and I do not think the House will wish me to enter into a general discussion of that principle. There were, however, other objections relating to definite points which it was possible to meet by modification and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will forgive me if I say that his invasion of Scotland on this occasion was rather more successful than such invasions have been on other occasions. He succeeded in getting some modifications which I think, in his view, will help in making the scheme workable. For example, the exemption limit was reduced from one acre to half an acre. It was shown that by intensive culture so much as three and four tons of raspberries could be produced on three-quarters or seven-eighths of an acre, which is very greatly in excess of the normal amount that could be produced, and as it would be detrimental to the scheme if a considerable number of producers of several tons each were left outside, the limit was therefore changed from one acre to half an acre. They made provision for quantitative regulation of sales for jam manufacture in order to prevent the board from being burdened with an unsaleable surplus, and from incurring expense in getting rid of it.

The scheme as promoted differs from the scheme as modified in the following ways: It is now applicable to Scotland North of the Forth and Clyde Canal. The growers in that area are chiefly interested in selling their produce for manufacture rather than for the fresh fruit market, while those growers in the South, in Lanarkshire and other parts, are interested much more in selling their fruit to the large local markets and elsewhere as fresh fruit. They wished to be omitted from the scheme, and the scheme, which deals, not with fresh fruit, but with that intended for manufacture, is therefore made to apply to the Northern area of Scotland, above the Forth and Clyde Canal. The exemptions are of producers growing not more than half an acre, manufacturers who grow for their own use and not for sale, and manufacturers making for their own requirements, not for sale outside. The sale of raspberries in packages not exceeding 24 lbs. in weight for retail trade or domestic use is also exempted.

I have mentioned some of the salient points in this scheme, but, as in other schemes, the board will have power to help the industry in other ways. They will have power to give loans to producers on the security of the crops. They will have power to help by information and, I hope, by research and education and assistance in co-operation in their work. The scheme is in accordance with the Marketing Act passed by this House, and the Secretary of State has satisfied himself that the persons submitting the scheme are duly representative in accordance with the terms of the Act. We believe that the scheme may be expected to conduce to the more efficient production and marketing of raspberries in Scotland. The scheme has already received an affirmative Resolution in another place, and I submit this Motion confidently, in the belief that it will be accepted as a step forward in the organisation of marketing in Scotland. I hope that the House will give assent to it now, in order that it may if approved at the poll, be brought into operation in time to regulate the marketing of the 1936 crop.

11.15 p.m.


The Under-Secretary has told us what is proposed to be done for the producers and manufacturers but has not said anything about one essential matter—the condition of berry pickers, who have been fighting for improved conditions for some time. If the Government want to put forward a scheme which will go through this House with accord they should have done something for these people. The Government are ready to advance loans to those engaged in the industry, and I want to know whether there is to be any consideration of the conditions and wages of the workers. Figures have been given showing the fluctuations in prices, but if the scheme is successful I understand that prices are going to be fixed. In that case it will be quite easy to base wages on prices fixed by the scheme. The condition of these berry pickers has not been a credit to Scotland and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that it is intended to improve their wages and conditions.

11.17 p.m.

Captain W. T. SHAW

I should like to know whether those growers who grow raspberries for their own manufacture will be entitled to vote in the ballot. In all these schemes the inducement held out for producers to vote is that they may receive protection. There is a duty of 4s. 6d. per cwt. on raspberry pulp, but if the market should change we might find the duty swept away overnight. We want confidence in this industry. We must have an assurance that the duty will not be swept away in a night. I cannot conceive any such thing occurring in say the iron and steel industry, yet in this important industry we may wake up one morning and find that the duty which the producers expected has been swept away. I hope we shall have an assurance on this point.

11.19 p.m.


We on these benches are opposed to this scheme. In the scheme it is said: a registered producer shall not sell, either within the area of the scheme or elsewhere, any raspberries otherwise than to or through the agency of the board. A little later it says: Provided that if in any year the board estimate that the production of raspberries will exceed the total market requirements, they may determine the quantity of raspberries which may be sold by any registered producer to or through the agency of the board. It is laid down first that the registered producer may not sell except to the board, and then that the board may determine the amount he may sell. There you have in a few lines the whole vicious principle, as we regard it, of the quantitative limitation of output, which, of course, follows from the 1933 Act. That limitation of output prevents, in the first place, the established grower from expanding his business, and, secondly, it prevents the newcomer from entering the industry at all. We on these benches oppose Orders and legislation of this sort because we believe that such measures go a long way towards the destruction of private enterprise.

Although it is true that the board must make their determination for the year, there is nothing to prevent them, as I read it, from making the determination year by year, and each year fixing a definite quantity that each producer may be allowed to sell to the board, which, in fact, will be the amount that each producer can profitably be allowed to produce. The Under-Secretary stated that the objections to the scheme put forward by some producers were general ones which might be put forward to all marketing schemes. We share those general objections, and we on these benches will oppose this and any other scheme in which the Government propose to use the powers they took under the 1933 Act.

11.22 p.m.


I hesitate as a Member representing an English constituency to intervene in this Debate, and I do so only because I am a Scotsman who lives in a raspberry area. I welcome this scheme heartily—more than I did the last one. Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who apparently intends to oppose it, I think the section to which he referred is one which ought to be retained in the scheme. If there is one thing which is more clear than anything else in the history of the raspberry industry, it is its chaotic state. Naturally, we understand that the hon. Member and his friends stand by the old chaotic Free Trade principles, but I think the House as a whole has given up those long ago.

Although the fact has not been mentioned, one of the real initial objections to the old scheme was that there were far too many lawyers on the old Board, and I am delighted to see that there are more producers on the new Board. There are, however, one or two questions I would like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary. The first concerns section 48, which deals with manufacturers who are exempted from registration under the scheme. I agree that they should be so exempted if they are not going to sell any of their produce, but I think it will be very difficult for the Board to determine the market requirements if manufacturers are not to be required to tell the Board, either officially or unofficially, their own marketing requirements. It is very difficult to estimate the raspberry crop even two months ahead. For instance, it was estimated last June that there would be a large crop, but owing to the drought, which lasted for six or seven weeks on end, the crop when it came to be marketed was a small one.

That gives some idea of the extraordinary difficulty of estimating the quantity of the crop. Section 48, which will allow manufacturers to ignore the scheme and give no information to anybody of their requirements will make it difficult to estimate the general market requirements. I have a good deal of sympathy with the proviso to section 61 which says that no more than 5 per cent. of the gross amount received should be deducted from the sale of raspberries for the general expenses of the administration of the scheme. There is, however, a point to which I should like to draw attention. In the case of a crop which is so difficult to estimate, it may be necessary to carry over a crop by a process of pulping from one year to another. Pulped raspberries, unlike potatoes, will keep. Therefore, I suggest that 5 per cent., while in some ways a valuable protection to the producers, may be a very small amount to enable the Board to finance the carrying over of the pulp which they are empowered to store under section 74. There is no provision for the financing of it. I agree that under section 64 they are allowed to get loans and advances from the bank, but even so, I think there may be some danger that there will not be provision for the financing of the carry-over of the crop. A small percentage reduction is allowed to ensure, as far as possible, market requirements being met from year to year, and to ensure as little as possible being carried over from year to year, but in a crop like raspberries it is impossible to estimate it. There are one or two other minor points which I would have liked to raise, but at this late hour I will not trouble the House with them. I only wish again to welcome the scheme and hope it will be a great success, because without it the raspberry industry in Scotland can never be successful.

11.28 p.m.


In many ways I welcome this debate for in 1931, when we discussed the previous raspberry Order which was introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I had the pleasure along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), of being the only opponent of the Order. I welcome tonight the support of the Liberal party—somewhat reduced in numbers, but to that extent improved in knowledge. The hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) rightly put the point that this Order had done nothing to deal with the labour conditions of those concerned in this industry. May I remind him that when I took that point in 1931, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Graham) pledged his party to support the Government against me. He said that with high prices wages would rise. If and when prices were stabilised, he said, they would have an infinitely stronger case to demand improved conditions for the industry; and they were not prepared to vote against the proposal of the Government. The Under - Secretary stated that the Secretary of State for Scotland had gone round, not officially, to find out how the growers would react to the new scheme, because he did not want it defeated a second time. One criticism I have to make is that when he was taking soundings he should have found out something about the conditions of the workers. We are proposing to give the raspberry growers an endowment, because the scheme will give them stabilised prices, and to that extent it will benefit them. In plain language it will raise the value of the raspberry crop.

Why, therefore, did the Secretary of State, when making his inquiries, take not a single step to look into the home conditions and the remuneration of the workers? He went round to see whether he could get support of the scheme, but left out one of the most important items in the survey. Nothing has been so black as the record of the raspberry growers in Scotland. I remember that in pre-war days the school teachers of Glasgow, in their holidays, led the poorer section of the community in a struggle for decent wages. Up to quite recent times there had been constant disputes and friction arising from the attempts of the raspberry growers to take advantage of conditions in the labour market. After all, the working people have a labour market, just as the raspberry growers have a commodity market, but the raspberry growers have not been ready to give the working people the advantages which they seek for themselves. There is no guaranteed price for the working people in their labour market.

This Government have a record of handing out millions of pounds to the rich while denying money to the comparatively poor. For their rich friends the Government has marketing schemes and stabilised prices, but for the working people, the more needy section of the community, there is not one guarantee. In going round the Secretary of State never paid the slightest attention to the working folk. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said this scheme was an attack on free competition. In fact it is the worst form of Capitalism and the worst form of what may be called Social- ism. It gives a guarantee to the capitalist; it saves him from the rigours of the free, competitive market. It is a scheme which this House ought to reject. The common decencies ought not to be denied to decent folk. I suppose the growers and manufacturers have their difficulties, but these are nothing like the difficulties of the working people; yet those people are to get a guaranteed market and their money is to be increased. The working people have not even a trade union to defend them.

An hon. Member stated that the Committee had been improved because some lawyers had been dropped from it, but there is not one representative on it of those who work in the industry—not one. Nor is there anybody asked to go on it who has knowledge of the everyday working conditions. The committee are packed by the Government and by their friends. This is an outrageous measure. I welcome my hon. Friends of the Opposition in this, because after three or four years they have taken up this question and will divide against it. It is another challenge to the Government. If ever there was a rich man's Government with little concern for the poor, it is this Government.

11.37 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY

We are beingasked to authorise the setting up of a new marketing board. It is only right that the attention of hon. Members should be drawn to the position of marketing boards in general, and of this board in particular. I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman that he was not able to bring forward this Order a week ago, when the skies were beautifully clear and the marketing boards were satisfied with their position. Now the situation is very different. The agricultural community in Scotland, no less than the agricultural industry in England, will view the setting up of any fresh marketing board with suspicion because, within the last few clays, one of the most important of His Majesty's marketing boards has been complaining that the Government has not only been for months flagrantly ignoring their advice, but have acted in the teeth of that advice. Overnight, duties on which the industry relied, and still relies, for the successful operation of this scheme, have been removed without even a proper hearing being given to the industry. We are asked to set up a marketing board. but constituencies all over the country will rightly ask us: "Why should we submit ourselves to the rigours and restrictions which such marketing schemes will put upon us, if, after they are established and growers are able to make a reasonable profit, we wake up one morning to find that some Measure has been passed which will endanger the whole situation?"

I appeal to the Under Secretary of State for Scotland to assure us that, having got his vote, arid having set up the proposed board, he will take the advice of the board, and not ignore it and allow things to be done over their heads that they consider detrimental to the operation of the scheme. Unless he can do so, we had better far vote against the scheme which, the moment it begins to work, will be vitiated by the very people who have set it up.

11.40 p.m.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Hear, hear."] I can assure the hon. Members who make those very unmannerly noises that they will not have the least influence on me, as to the length of time I consider it necessary, in the interests of my constituency, to state their case from my place in this House.

If it had any effect at all, it would be to make me speak at greater length than I otherwise should. I think that, like the last speaker, the House will commiserate with the Minister of Agriculture. We remember that these schemes started, with tremendous momentum, force and enthusiasm, with milk, and proceeded in turn to pigs, potatoes and herrings. Finally, we have descended to raspberries. What is to be the next subject? I can picture the right hon. Gentleman going to the Cabinet and saying that, though it might be impossible to find a scheme that would please everyone, and difficult to find a scheme that would please anyone, he must have a marketing scheme for something. Why he has chosen to impose this scheme on Scotland I am at loss to understand. It has all the difficulties of every other marketing scheme; it is inspired by the same motive that has inspired 90 per cent. of the Government's legislation in the last two or three years. They are trying to repair, prop up and bolster up the system of so-called private enterprise and capitalism, without admitting that it has broken down. Instead of taking in the whole industry, they take in a mere part of it. As with the milk scheme, they take in the producers but leave out the middlemen, who take far more out of the industry. The same may be said of this scheme as was said of the milk scheme in 1934. In 1934 there were farmers who could have sold out their farms, lock, stock and barrel, and invested the proceeds in any one of the leading milk distributing concerns, could have had a year's holiday, and could have come back to find their capital doubled, without their having done a stroke of work in that year, but by continuing to carry out their duty to the community, so far from making profits, an enormous proportion of them lost money—


That must have been due to the bad Act of yours.


If the right hon. Gentleman has any observations to make, I shall be happy to give way. I understood that that kind of interruption was only proper to back-benchers. I have no wish to state the case against marketing schemes in general, but I am satisfied that this continued attempt to bolster up so-called private enterprise is doomed to failure, and sooner or later you will be compelled to give the State that complete control of these industries without which they will never be restored to prosperity.

11.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE

I hope the House will now be able to come to a decision on this matter, but perhaps I may be allowed to answer one or two points. The hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked why the scheme did not contain conditions relating to the persons employed in the industry, but they will know that the Marketing Acts do not cover such matters, and it would not be competent within the framework of the scheme to provide for regulations of that type.


The Secretary of State, before he gave the producers the scheme, could have got from them guarantees as to wages and conditions.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE

That is rather a different point. Two hon. and gallant Members—the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) and the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw)—raised the point as to what degree of protection would be accorded to this industry. That is a matter which the House has decided to leave in the hands of the Import Duties Advisory Committee set up to advise the Government on the rate of duty that should be applied. The Advisory Committee is charged with the duty of weighing up all the circumstances, and it will be competent for the board to make representations to them as regards the rate of duty which in their view is required. Beyond that I cannot go. I have been asked to give a guarantee that in no circumstances will the rate be varied in a downward direction. I cannot give that guarantee, as it would be contrary to the machinery set up.

It is certain that the raspberry industry will be in a better and sounder position to make their desires known through the Board, than it is in its present disorganised condition. An industry which is suffering from the present fluctuations of price cannot hope to provide decent conditions for the workers, when the price which has stood in the neighbourhood of £22 a ton, has come down to as low a figure as £10 a ton. I should think that that fact would appeal to hon. Members in all quarters of the House, even the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and convince them that there is something wrong which requires to be put right. The junior Member for Dundee made a point as to the prevention of new producers. In section 71 (b) he will find a proviso which deals with the difficulty. It is not the intention of the Government to stifle private or individual enterprise but rather to assist an industry which gives a great deal of employment in Scotland so to organise itself and to get an organised market that it will become established on a sound basis.

11.49 p.m.


Before we go to a Division, it is incumbent upon me to make it perfectly plain that the Labour party is not against reasonable, sound co-ordination and marketing arrangements. We consider that such co-ordination is advisable. We believe that stupidity in marketing ought to be eliminated. But we hold very strongly that this scheme is Completely partial, cuts out large sections of the Scottish crop itself, takes no account of the fact that we have been discussing for years a a scheme for the whole of England and Scotland, and that no attention has been paid to labour Conditions in the industry. There is no co-ordination between England and Scotland. Therefore on these grounds and because we believe that these marketing schemes will not work satisfactorily until they represent all sections of the workers, producers and consumers, we feel that we must go into the Lobby and make our protest against this scheme. I admit that in reply to representations I made at a public inquiry in Scotland certain concessions have been made, and it is only fair to the Under-Secretary to state our position.

11.52 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY

May I ask a question?


The hon. Member has exhausted his rights.

Captain RAMSAY

But may I ask a question? The Under-Secretary did not quite understand what I said. Will he give us an assurance that in the teeth of advice for the board the duties will not be removed? My hon. and gallant

Friend assured us that he could not say whether the duties would be put down or not. What we want to know is whether he will obstruct duties being put down in the teeth of the advice of the board which he is now getting up.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE

I cannot give that assurance. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that representations made by the board will carry weight.


Is it in order to discuss Import Duties on this scheme? What is being said about potatoes can be completely controverted.


I thought myself that the Debate was getting rather wide. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask whether or not the board will be in a position to make representations and what weight will be given to them. We cannot go into the matter of what is the proper function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.


Surely some continuity of policy must be maintained?


That question does not arise.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 77.

Division No. 140.] AYES. [11.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Gridley, Sir A. B.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Grimston, R. V.
Albery, I. J. Crooke, J. S. Gritten, W. G. Howard
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Crowder, J. F. E. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Culverwell, C. T. Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J Davies, C. (Montgomery) Guy, J. C. M.
Apsley, Lord Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Hanbury, Sir C.
Aske, Sir R. W. De la Bère, R. Hannah, I. C.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Harbord A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Dugdale, Major T. L. Hartington, Marquess of
Baxter, A. Beverley Duggan, H. J. Harvey, G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Duncan, J. A. L. Hellgers Captain F. F. A.
Belt, Sir A. L. Dunglass, Lord Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Blinded, Sir J. Dunne, P. R. R. Herbert Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Boulton, W. W. Eckersley, P. T. Holmes, J. S.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie Elliston, G. S. Horsbrugh, Florence
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Errington, E. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Brass, Sir W. Erskine Hill, A. G. Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Everard, W. L. Hunter, T.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Fildes, Sir H. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Bull, B. B. Findlay, Sir E. James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Butt, Sir A. Fleming, E. L. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Campbell, Sir E. T. Fraser, Capt. Sir I. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Cartland, J. R. H. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Latham, Sir P.
Carver, Major W. H. Furness, S. N. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Cary, R. A. Fyfe, D. P. M. Leckie, J. A.
Castlereagh, Viscount Gledhill, G. Leech, Dr. J. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Gluckstein, L. H. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Goldie, N. B. Levy, T.
Colman, N. C. D. Goodman, Col. A. W. Liddall, W. S.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Gower, Sir R. V. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Lloyd, G. W. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V. Pilkington, R. Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Loftus, P. C. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Lumley, Capt. L. R. Pownall, Sir A. Assheton Strickland, Captain W. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Radford, E. A. Sutcliffe, H.
McCorquodale, M. S. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F. Ramsbotham, H. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
McKie, J. H. Rankin, R. Titchfield, Marquess of
Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Tree, A. R. L. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R. Rayner, Major R. H. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Markham, S. F. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Wakefield, W. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Robinson, J, R. (Blackpool) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Ropner, Colonel L. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Rowlands, G. Warrender, Sir V.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A Waterhouse, Captain C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Salmon, Sir I. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Munro, P. M. Salt, E. W. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Scott, Lord William Wise, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Palmer, G. E. H. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Penny, Sir G. Shepperson, Sir E. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Petherick, M. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Cross.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Pritt, D. N.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Glbbins, J. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Adamson, W. M. Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Ritson, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Grenfell, D. R. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Ammon, C. G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Rowson, G.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Griffiths, J. (Lianelly) Seely, Sir H. M.
Barnes, A. J. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Sexton, T. M.
Barr, J. Hardie, G. D. Simpson, F. B.
Benson, G. Harris, Sir P. A. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Bevan, A. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Broad, F. A. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Bromfield, W. Holdsworth, H. Sorensen, R. W.
Buchanan, G. Hollins, A. Stephen, C.
Casselis, T. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Compton, J. Kelly, W. T. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kirby, B. V. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Daggar, G. Lathan, G. Tinker, J. J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leach, W. Watson, W. McL.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Welsh, J. C.
Dobbie, W. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Westwood, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Marklew, E. White, H. Graham
Ede, J. C. Marshall, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Maxton, J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Messer, F.
Foot, D. M. Milner, Major J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Frankel, D. Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.
Garro-Jones, G. M. Potts, J.

Resolved, That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, entitled the Scottish Raspberry Marketing Scheme, 1936, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 11th day of March, 1936, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.