WHEAT BILL.

HL Deb 28 April 1932 vol 84 cc219-80

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Provisions for securing to growers of millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor.

1.—(1) If, in any cereal year, the ascertained average price of home-grown millable wheat is less than the standard price, every registered grower shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations or by-laws made thereunder, be entitled to receive from the Wheat Commission in respect of every hundredweight of such wheat of his own growing sold by him in that year, not being wheat harvested before the year nineteen hundred and thirty-two, a payment (hereinafter referred to as a "deficiency payment") representing, subject to the deduction to be made under the provisions of this Act relating to administrative expenses, the difference (hereinafter referred to as the "price deficit") between the said average price and the standard price:

(5) If, within the period within which any wheat is required by an order made under this section to be bought, objection is made, in such manner as may be provided by the by-laws of the Wheat Commission, by or on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation, that any of that wheat—

1. (a) is not home-grown; or
2. (b) is not millable wheat; or
3. (c) is not of the quality according to which the price has been so determined as aforesaid;

then if it is determined by arbitration in accordance with the said by-laws that the wheat objected to is not home-grown mill-able wheat the order shall cease to have effect as respects that wheat, or if it is so determined that the wheat objected to, though home-grown millable wheat, is of lower quality than that according to which the price has been determined, the requirements of the order shall be deemed to be complied with as respects that wheat if it is bought by the corporation at such lower price as the arbitrator may allow.

(7) Any wheat of a registered grower's own growing, which is bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation in accordance with the requirements of an order made under this section, pursuant to a representation of the Wheat Commission, or which is forfeited to the Commission under the last foregoing subsection, shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section to have been sold by that grower in the cereal year in which the representation of the Commission was made.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "millable" [home-grown millable wheat]. The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment because I want to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill two questions. In the first place I want to ask him why it is that the benefits and advantages of this Bill are to be limited to growers of millable wheat; and, secondly, why, if the Government propose to limit the people who are to receive these pecuniary benefits, they have not included in the Bill a definition of millable wheat. Originally the movement on which this Bill is based was very largely a patriotic one—namely, that in support of an all-British loaf—but as things have worked out we now know, as has been stated several times in another place, that most of the wheat is not going, into bread at all but into biscuits or poultry food and other things. Therefore that particular point no longer stands good. It is no longer going to help the growers of wheat for the purpose of bread making. I notice that in another place someone who very often speaks for the National Farmers' Union said that there is no wheat to-day which is not millable, and the Minister for Agriculture stated, as is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that it is essential that someone should have power to define millable wheat. I suggest that if mill-able wheat is to be defined it is Parliament that ought to agree to that definition. Your Lordships will have gathered from Clause 19, page 25, that it is contemplated that there should be a definition of millable wheat and I wish to suggest to the Government that before we part company with this Bill it ought to include such a definition. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, leave out ("millable").—(Viscount Astor.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)

The noble Viscount has asked us why this assistance should be limited to the growers of millable wheat. I think it is perfectly clear that if public money, or money provided at the expense of any portion of the community, is to be expended in the way suggested in this Bill, it should be given only to those growers who produce really good quality produce. I should have thought that the noble Viscount, with his ideas of agriculture, would have been the very first to agree with the Government on that point. His second point is why this question of definition is left to a regulation instead of being settled by Parliament. The definition of wheat, as to whether it is "millable" or not, is obviously a very technical question, and it may well be that even when the definition has been settled it may have to be altered at a later stage. It is a definition which we may probably arrive at by experiment, and therefore it is most desirable that such a matter should be in a regulation which, if necessary, can be altered without reference to Parliament. For that reason I ask you to leave the word "millable" in the Bill.

LORD PARMOOR

May I say one word upon this point? I do not think the noble Earl opposite answered in any way the complaint of the noble Viscount who raised the question, as to whether there was any such stuff as unmillable wheat, or whether all wheat is millable, and the definition therefore, so far from being one which includes or excludes, is really a matter of supererogation altogether. If it is a matter of importance (and I understand the noble Earl to think it is) surely it ought to be defined now. I admit I am against all bread taxation in every form, but if we a-re to have it it is well to know what we are dealing with in a Bill of this kind. At the present time nobody can have any notion. It will depend upon some definition to be made on a subsequent occasion. Ought not the House to know what is the subject matter of a Bill of this kind?

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord says all wheat is millable. Would he suggest that all wheat grown last year, in the weather which we experienced in this country, was millable? Would he suggest that unripe wheat, dirty, damp, and musty wheat, was millable? We all know that such wheat was not millable. On the point of the noble Lord that a question such as this should come before Parliament, may I point out that in Clause 17 it is provided that all regulations made by the Minister shall come before Parliament?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next five Amendments are either drafting or consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 27, after ("year") insert ("in which the representation was made")

Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("force") to the end of line 32

Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("subsection") to ("in") in line 35

Page 3, line 2, after ("wheat") insert ("to be")

Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("Any such order shall also specify the period within which the wheat to which the order relates is to be bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation, and that corporation shall take delivery thereof within that period").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (5), after "bought," to insert "or within such further time as the Wheat Commission may, on the application of the corporation made within that period, allow." The noble Earl said: This is a minor Amendment, designed to make it possible for the Wheat Commission to extend the time during which objections as to the nature and quality of wheat offered to the Flour Millers' Corporation under a compulsory purchase roder may be made by the corporation.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 9, after ("bought") insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next four Amendments are consequential or drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 3, line 32, after ("buying") insert ("and taking delivery of")

Page 4, line 4, after ("sell") insert ("and deliver")

Page 4, line 11, leave out ("upon judgment being") and insert ("becoming payable under a judgment")

Page 4, line 25, leave out from ("section") to ("or") in line 26."—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "subsection (1) of this section to have been sold by that grower in the cereal year in which the representation of the Commission was made," and to insert "subsections (1) and (2) of this section to have been sold by that grower on the date on which the order came into force." The noble Earl said: This is in order to remove any doubt as to what is to be taken to be the date of sale for the purposes of subsection (2) of the clause in a case arising out of a compulsory purchase order.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 28, leave out from the first ("of") to the end of line 30, and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Determination of "ascertained average price," ''standard price" and ''anticipated supply" of home-grown millable wheat.

2.—(1) As soon as practicable after the cereal year ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and after the end of every subsequent cereal year the Minister shall, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, by order prescribe the price which he determines to have been the average price obtained by registered growers throughout the United Kingdom for home-grown millable wheat of their own growing sold by them in that year; and in this Act the expression "ascertained average price" means, in relation to any cereal year, the price so prescribed as respects that year.

(2) In this Act the expression "standard price" means the price of ten shillings per hundredweight:

Provided that, not later than the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the Minister shall appoint a committee of three persons, who, after considering general economic conditions and the conditions affecting the agricultural industry, shall report to the Minister as to the desirability of making any alteration in the standard price, and if that committee make to the Minister a recommendation that the standard price should be altered, the Minister may by order substitute for the price aforesaid, as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, such price as may be specified in the order, but the order shall be provisional only and shall have no effect until confirmed by Parliament.

(3) The Minister shall, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, by order prescribe at or as soon as practicable after the beginning of every cereal year, the quantity of home-grown millable wheat of their own growing which he anticipates will be sold by registered growers during that year, and any such order made with respect to any cereal year may be varied by a subsequent order made in like manner before the end of the month of January in that cereal year; and, subject as hereinafter provided, in this Act the expression "anticipated supply" means in relation to any cereal year, the quantity so prescribed with respect to that year by the order for the time being in force:

Provided that—

(a) if the quantity of home-grown millable wheat prescribed under this subsection in relation to any cereal year exceeds twenty-seven million hundred-weights, the anticipated supply shall, except for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section one of this Act, be taken to be twenty-seven million hundred-weights;

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) The order made under the last foregoing subsection as respects any cereal year shall also contain a certificate by the Minister certifying the quantity of home-grown millable wheat of their own growing sold by registered growers in that year, and for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section one of this Act, that certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the quantity aforesaid. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to be inserted because it is obviously desirable for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 1 that the quantity of home-grown millable wheat of their own growing sold by registered growers in any year should be conclusively certified, and the necessary information will be possessed only by the Minister and the Wheat Commission. As the information required will always be wanted at the same time as information as to the ascertained average price, it is thought that it will be convenient to have the certificate embodied in the order prescribing the "ascertained average price."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Does this mean that the farmer has to make a separate return to the Minister?

EARL DE LA WARR

No. It is exactly the opposite—that the whole thing should be embodied in one.

On Question, Amendment a-greed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the price of ten shillings per hundredweight" and to insert:

1. "(a) in relation to the cereal year ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the price of ten shillings per hundredweight;
2. (b) in relation to each of the two next succeeding cereal years, a price per hundredweight less by two and two-thirds pence than the standard price applicable to the preceding cereal year;
3. (c) in relation to the cereal year ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and each subsequent cereal year, the price of nine shillings and fourpence per hundredweight."

The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment of considerable substance and importance. Its aim and object is to help to cheapen the production of wheat, to try to get away from what I think is one of the real dangers of this Bill—namely, having a permanent subsidy, and also to assist what is called the "change over" to other forms of agriculture than wheat growing, so that ultimately, if this Amendment were carried, we could look forward to having wheat growers who are able to stand on their own legs without subsidy because they could produce wheat economically, or farmers who were going in for some other branch of agriculture than wheat growing. The other day on Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, when we were discussing this question of change-over to mechanisation, that is to say, from expensive wheat production to cheap wheat production, pointed out, quite rightly and accurately, that one of the difficulties of farmers to-day was their shortage of capital. The words he used were— … the farmer who at present is growing wheat by uneconomic methods…is probably a man who has not the capital to enable him to get the equipment necessary to turn over to other methods. One of the objects of the Amendment is to provide the necessary capital to enable that man to buy machinery so as to produce wheat more economically, and in that way get away from having to depend upon a subsidy for longer than is absolutely necessary.

I do want to suggest to the noble Earl that there is a very real danger, unless we do something like this, of finding ourselves with a large number of farmers who can grow wheat at 45s. and at no lower figure than that, and who, if it were not for the prospect of this Bill being continued indefinitely, would have turned over to other branches of agriculture. I think if that were to happen we might find that we had landed the country with a very large and unnecessary expenditure, going on for quite an indefinite period of time. I will try to explain the purpose of the Amendment. The wording is scattered over several clauses, but I do not apologise for that, because nothing connected with this Bill could be more complicated than the Bill itself. Under the Bill as drafted money is collected into a central fund making something like £6,000,000 available for distribution to registered growers of wheat. In my Amendment I propose to create another fund, so that the money should not be available only for people who are growing wheat, as they are now doing very often, by expensive methods, but should be available for the other purposes which I have indicated. Later you will find on page 7 of the Marshalled List of Amendments a consequential Amendment. I have put down a new clause there, providing for an Agricultural Development Fund, and on page 8 you will find that there is another new clause, which would follow if we accept the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. That second new clause explains the purpose which I have in mind. Under that new clause the Development Commissioners could make capital grants to persons for the purpose of defraying capital expenditure.

I ought in the drafting of this clause to have limited the operation to registered growers; that is to say, the people I wish to include are registered wheat growers who either want to buy machinery or want to turn over to another branch of agriculture. I do not propose that it shall be possible for the Development Commissioners to give any of this money to a purely grass farmer who wants to build a new cow-house. I want as far as possible to limit the money to the registered growers; that is to say, to those who would otherwise be getting the full benefit under the Bill as now drafted. The result of the Amendments taken as a whole would be that the 45s. guarantee—I use that expression for short—would be reduced over a period of three years by 1s. a year. The money so saved would be put into the Development Fund. That Development Fund would be used by the Development Commissioners either for assisting a farmer to mechanise or to change over to some other branch of agriculture if he felt that he wished to give up wheat growing for any reason. There will be no extra charge to anybody and no extra cost if my Amendment is carried, nor would the money go to anybody who would not be entitled under the Bill as drafted to get some benefit or advantage.

One great advantage of the Amendment, as I see it, is that we should get away from what is going to be a real danger in three or six years time, the danger of finding a lot of new vested interests—people who are getting a sub- sidy from the Government, who have been induced to put their energies, their capital and their time into growing wheat and who cannot grow wheat profitably at less than 45s. There are many others who can grow it at a very much lower figure and I will come to them in a moment. I am dealing now with a number of people who will be induced to grow wheat and can only grow it at 45s. As I say, there will be a very real danger in three years time of pressure being brought to bear on Members of Parliament to continue this subsidy and not to let it end. Already I notice it is reported in the Press that a Member of Parliament who sits for an arable area has said, in talking to his constituents, that he was doing his best to see that the guaranteed figure was not too low. I cannot imagine anything worse than to have rival candidates trying to get the support of the voters in a constituency by promising to continue this subsidy or even to increase it. That is a very bad and dangerous principle, I think.

The noble Earl might raise the objection that if the guaranteed price were to be reduced by 1s. a year for the first three years—from 45s. to 44s. and 43s. —some wheat growers might be getting a smaller benefit or advantage than if there was a flat-rate figure, or that some of them might not be getting any benefit at all at the end of three years owing to the existence of what is called the four-course rotation. My answer is that already under the Bill as it is drafted and is going to operate there is no real principle under which this money is to be distributed. It will be given in unequal amounts to different people up and down the country. Some will get large sums of money, others will get small sums of money. Therefore, the fact of reducing the guaranteed price from 45s. to 44s. ought not to carry weight with your Lordships.

I noticed the other day that one of the noble Earl's late colleagues in the Labour Government indicated that if Dr. Addison had brought in a Wheat Quota Bill a year ago there would have been a diminishing figure and not a flat-rate figure; so that the noble Earl would then have been defending and justifying the Amendment I am now asking him to accept. I hope very much that some- thing on these lines will be agreed to. I want to repeat what I said the other day, that one mandate which this Government and this Parliament received after the last Election was not to be wasteful or extravagant or to indulge in any unnecessary expenditure. More than half the money which is to be expended under the Bill before your Lordships is going to people to whom the Government does not want it to go; that is to say, something like £2,000,000 to £3,000,000—assunting the full expenditure of £4,000,000 to £6,000,000—will go to farmers to whom the Government does not want it to go. I base that statement on the assumption that the intention of the Government is only to give a fair and reasonable profit to those farmers who can only grow wheat at 45s. If that is the aim of the Government, it is obvious that a large number of other people will get money under the Bill. Take, for instance, the poultry keepers who grow wheat and who make a profit now on the wheat they grow. Twenty-two per cent. of the wheat grown in this country never leaves the farm at all. Most of it, I imagine, goes to poultry. The poultry farmers are making a profit now. Under the Bill as drafted those poultry keepers will get an additional bonus, a second profit, and that is to be given them at the public expense.

Then there is the case of those farmers who grow wheat because they want straw, dairy farmers or farmers who are near racing stables and have a good market for straw at a high figure, or those who sell straw for box making. They are already making a profit. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, queried my statement the other day that dairy farmers had been making money. During the last few years it is milk production which hits pulled farming through. There has been a steady increase in the cow population. That shows that milk production on the whole has been profitable, and dairy farmers are already making a profit by the sale of their milk. We must not base our attitude on whether they are making a profit to-day, but taking the year as a whole dairy farmers are going to get an additional bonus, a second profit, and the public are to be compelled by the Government under this Bill, in spite of the pledge of economy, to give those farmers an additional bonus, a second profit, although they are not asking for it. They will not mind it, many of them, but they are not putting up, and they have not put up, an unanswerable case for a second profit or bonus.

There is also a third group of farmers, those who are producing wheat at considerably less than 45s. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, will accept my statement that there are many farmers who are and have been producing wheat at a profit at a much lower figure than 45s. If he does not accept it I am afraid I shall have to quote a large number of documents concerning inquiries conducted by Leeds University, Cambridge University, and Oxford University. I will quote his own Chief—

EARL DE LA WARR

I will accept it front the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

Then I will only make one quotation. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking on March 16, said that it was possible to grow wheat at 6s. a cwt which, I believe, is about 27s. a quarter. I have looked into many of the costings that I referred to just now and I find that 45s. is an average figure between what are generally taken to be the two extremes of 20s. and 70s. If 45s. is the average figure, it is obvious that there must be a large number of farmers who are producing wheat at less than 45s. and down to 20s. and are making a bigger profit than the Government or than Parliament wants to give them. That is to say that the Bill is again going to compel the public to pay out of its pocket an unnecessarily large profit to a certain section of wheat growers. Those two sections I have referred to—the farmers who grow wheat for straw and the farmers who are able to grow wheat at a very much lower figure than 45s.—would represent something like 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the farmers who are to get a benefit under the Wheat Bill. I have given those figures because I want to substantiate the statement I made just now that more than half the money—that is, from £2,000,000 to, £3,000,000—which is to be paid under this Bill is going to be an unnecessary expenditure of public money. It is to go to people to whom the Government is not trying to give this extra bonus.

It has been found—I am not surprised —impossible to make this a water-tight scheme. I suggest to your Lordships that it is very serious in these days of national economy, when we have had to make serious cuts in the pay of civil servants, police and teachers, that we should be going to spend from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 unnecessarily. That is to be the effect of the Bill, and I appeal to the Government to give favourable consideration to the Amendment, because it will help farmers to mechanise; and it will enable those who want in whole or in part to give up wheat growing to turn to other branches of agriculture by giving them a capital grant for equipment as indicated in the new clause of mine on page 8 of the Marshalled List. It will, without any further expense to the public, do this and at the same time bring the operation of this very expensive Bill to a reasonably short close. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, leave out ("the price of ten shillings per hundredweight") and insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Astor.)

LORD BAYFORD

I object to this Amendment on more grounds than one. Its object seems to be to restrict the number of people who are likely to grow wheat if the Bill becomes law. Speaking as one who comes from a part of the country where wheat is very little grown, I can only say that this is just what we object to. We want as many people to grow wheat as possible, because we do not want them to compete with us by engaging in the dairy trade. The only reason why in the West Country this Bill is, well, not unpopular, is that in the last two years, in spite of all the noble Viscount says, very few people have been growing wheat at a profit, more and more have turned their attention to milk, and the competition has been so great that for a considerable period, at all events, milk in the West Country has been produced at a loss. That is why, on the merits of the Amendment, I object to it. The other reason I object to it is a technical one. The noble Viscount proposes that instead of the money being devoted to this form of subsidy to wheat it should be devoted to a scheme of development for kindred but separate branches of agriculture. If the noble Viscount will look at the title of the Bill he will see that that is altogether outside the scope of the Bill. I am not so well acquainted with the Rules of Order in this House as I am with those in another place, but, whatever may be possible here, I can assure the noble Viscount that if the Bill with the Amendment he proposes goes back to the House of Commons it would not only, perhaps, be considered undesirable, but by the Rules of Order of that House, it would be really impossible to retain his Amendment in the Bill. Therefore it seems to me that the Amendment is both undesirable and impracticable.

EARL DE LA WARR

I, too, hope that your Lordships will not pass this Amendment and the Amendments that are consequential upon it. The desire of the Government in the policy that they have adopted is to give to arable agriculture a period of definite stability. We have chosen that period as one of three years. The noble Viscount suggests that this price should operate only for one year and should then be decreased. Those who are connected with the land know perfectly well that one year in dealing with land is nothing, and that if you want to pursue any policy at all to talk of pursuing it for one year only is folly. The noble Viscount suggests that the scheme, about which we have all heard so much but which only a few of us have seen, of the late Government and which he said I supported, included a declining price. I am not at liberty to discuss that point except to say that if the price arranged in this Bill had been for a very much longer period, as it might conceivably have been intended in this hypothetical document, then there might have been a case during the last few years of the period for having a decline in price on the lines the noble Viscount suggests. For example, if it had been for a seven-year period then you could have had the three-year certainty, which we have in this Bill, and you could thereafter have had a decline in price if that had been so desired.

The noble Viscount may ask: Why not fix your price for a period of seven years instead of three? I think the answer to that is very clear. Nobody would at present venture to put into an Act of Parliament a fixed price in terms of money for a long period, because to do that would be to commit a very foolish act. Who is to know in the existing state of things what the value of 45s. or 35s. or 40s.—whichever the noble Viscount wants—is going to be after a few years, or even, possibly, a shorter period? Our purpose in this Bill is to give stability to a certain amount of arable agriculture. How have we tried to arrive at that basis? This Bill is, as you may say, a form of subsidy to the wheat grower. We felt that assistance to the wheat grower was justifiable, because we saw that there was a certain large area of agriculture in England which could not carry on its business unless it was given a secure market and a guaranteed price for one of its main products, wheat. How did we try to arrive at the area which we would be justified in assisting on those grounds? We made extensive inquiries amongst our economic advisers throughout the country, and we also took certain figures relating to the past, and we found that whereas at present we were cultivating 1,250,000 acres of wheat, our Bill, by providing a limitation of 6,000,000 quarters, secures an acreage of 1,800,000 acres. In 1909–1913 the acreage was 1,850,000 and in the years 1901–5 it was, I think, 1,400,000. During and after the War it mounted up to over 2,000,000. Taking those figures, we felt safe in assuming that the central figure was about the figure which we would be justified in taking, and in that we were further strengthened by our inquiries.

Then we made inquiries as to the approximate price which would enable us to maintain that acreage. Even on the figures which the noble Viscount threatened to quote from Oxford and other centres it was admitted that the deficit on the present price of wheat was about 15s. a quarter or £3 an acre. Those were the Oxford University figures. Actually we are paying according to the world price to-day a premium of between 15s. and 18s. That is how we arrived at our conclusions and we felt that our reasons for arriving at those conclusions were sufficient to justify us in giving the wheat grower complete security of market and price for at least three years. We do meet the point of the noble Viscount thoroughly and completely by saying that after that period there shall be a committee appointed to reconsider the question of price. We have considered this matter very thoroughly and I think we have met the main contention of the noble Viscount that we should not be permanently committed to this price. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to insert the Amendment.

LORD OLIVIER

I think the chief general objection to this proposal is that it is much too elaborate, speculative and far-reaching. You cannot tell whether in two or three years time the proposal of the noble Viscount would have the effect of making more people who want to go in for cow-keeping increase their capital or whether it would not. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has rightly said, you do not know enough about the future to embark on a large development for that purpose. That, I should say, is the main Parliamentary objection to the Amendment, but there is also a practical objection on the ground of the principle and purpose for which I, at any rate, support this Bill. We do definitely want to stop the rot in wheat growing in this country. There are a great many farms which are just on the balance between being given over to milk production and pig-keeping and growing wheat—farms which are perfectly well suited for growing wheat if a, decent and reasonable price can be obtained for wheat. I know of such farms myself, and farmers have told me: "If I could get a decent price for wheat I could get along, but now all the profit I make from milk is taken from me as I must go on growing wheat for straw and other purposes and because it is useful for the pigs."

We want to preserve wheat growing. I am rather a fanatic over wheat, just as I am over sugar cane. It is a noble crop. I was planting wheat probably before any of your Lordships, because at eight years of age I dibbled a three-acre field with wheat under a schoolmaster. I have worked with my hands on wheat and I have acquired a childish enthusiasm for it. I certainly believe, as I think most of your Lordships do, that it is a noble and useful farm-crop, and we do not want to see it crushed out by a temporary fall in price. It is to tide over that temporary fall in price that three years has been fixed, and I think it would be a mistake to try to tinker with that provision in the Bill for the purpose of some progressive, policy when we do not know whether that policy can be carried out.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I rise to express a certain degree of sympathy with the object of the noble Viscount. I am not in favour of opposing a Bill which merely encourages the wheat-grower, but in so far as the noble Viscount's ideas extend beyond wheat growing to the far more important live-stock industry I cannot help feeling that the expression of those ideas is a corrective which is very necessary to the capricious and sectional application of Government aid to agriculture. I am afraid that I should be out of order if I expanded my views on that subject, but it is for that reason that I rise to express sympathy to that extent with the noble Viscount's Amendment.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

May I deal with one or two points which have been raised in this interesting discussion? The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, spoke as if those of us who support a live-stock policy want to extinguish wheat. We do not want that at all. What we do feel is that wheat growing should be carried on economically and that if wheat cannot be grown economically then the land should be used for other purposes. As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, the difficulty there is that some farmers seem to think that the amount of money which the public is prepared to spend on agriculture is unlimited. I am afraid it is not. And if it is not unlimited then we must not spend an excessive amount on one branch of the industry because the more we spend in that way the less we shall have to spend on the livestock branch and other branches of the industry. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, would be prepared to accept part of the Amendment—that is to say, to make a certain amount of money available for providing capital for mechanisation. As I indicated just now the people who would derive benefit under my full Amendment would be exactly the same people; that is, registered wheat growers. If the noble Earl does not want to enable them to change over to other forms of agriculture I should be prepared to drop that part of the Amendment, but, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said the other day, that there are a considerable number of wheat growers who would like to mechanise but cannot do so because they are short of capital, I wonder whether the noble Earl would accept part of my Amendment?

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid that what the noble Viscount suggests would be outside the scope of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has said. If he will read the short title of the Bill I think he will see that it is quite out of the question. I think I must say also that it would undoubtedly be an Amendment which would conflict with Privilege, because it deals with money raised and to be expended by a State body. I am quite sure that the view of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is in charge of the House, and who has so much respect for the Privileges of the House of Commons, would certainly be that such an Amendment would be quite out of the question. If it were inserted the House of Commons would probably raise the question of Privilege. On both those grounds, even if the Government were willing, I am afraid the Amendment cannot be accepted.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I do not want to be misunderstood. I was merely referring to a modification which would enable a farmer to get machinery for wheat growing. I do not think that would be outside the scope of the Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Yes.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

When it is machinery for wheat growing?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Yes. Surely the title of the Bill shows that it is to provide a certain amount of money to enable people to grow wheat at a decent price, and not to provide them with money to buy machinery. I do not think myself that it is an Amendment which would infringe Privilege, because it would not increase the charge—it is part of a charge which has already been passed by the other House—but that it is outside the scope of the Bill is certain. At any rate it would be certain in the House of Commons. Whether it is so here I do not know, because you can do what you like in this place.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice of a further Amendment in subsection (2), to leave out "the price of ten shillings per hundredweight" and insert: (a) in relation to the several cereal years ending respectively on the thirty-first day of July, in the years nineteen hundred and thirty-three, nineteen hundred and thirty-four and nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the price of ten shillings per hundredweight; and (b) in relation to the several cereal years ending respectively on the thirty-first day of July in the years nineteen hundred and thirty-six, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, the price of seven shillings and nine and one-third pence per hundredweight.

The noble Viscount said: The intention of this Amendment is to guarantee wheat growers against excessive loss when the bottom drops out of the world wheat market. On the Second Reading I said I thought the Bill contained a very dangerous principle—namely, that Government or Parliament should guarantee to an industry a perpetual profit. I would like to repeat that I consider it to be a very dangerous principle. British industry has grown up and developed because it was prepared to take risks. It did not ask to be guaranteed a profit by Parliament whatever happened in the world. In 1922 and 1923 and in 1930 and 1931 the world price of wheat dropped very much more heavily than the price of general commodities and this Amendment attempts to link up the price of wheat with the price of world commodities. If the Amendment were carried it means that there would be a guarantee of 35s. That would enable some growers to make a profit, but the intention is to guarantee growers against excessive loss, which is a much more defensible principle, when the world price dropped more than the price of general commodities. That is the object of my Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment has been put down in a somewhat confusing way. I shall put the question, not to leave out "the price of ten shillings per hundredweight," as your Lordships have already decided to leave them in, but to insert the words as printed on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Astor.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment will know whether that will meet him, but it seems to me to make nonsense of the wording. I do not want to embarrass the noble Viscount, but I do not want him to do something which will result in nonsense.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I have had the same difficulty as the Government has had in drafting Amendments and that was why I indicated my object. If the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment we could deal with the drafting; if not there is no object in discussion.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not think need trouble you with further argument on the merits of the point, as I have already tried to deal with it. I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved to omit the proviso in subsection (2) and insert: Provided that, not later than the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the Minister shall appoint a committee of three persons, who, after considering general economic conditions and the conditions affecting the agricultural industry, shall report to the Minister as to the desirability of making any alteration in the standard price or the limitation of the 'anticipated supply,' and if that committee make to the Minister a recommendation that the standard price or the limitation of the 'anticipated supply' should be altered, the Minister may by order substitute for the price aforesaid, as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, such price or limitation of the 'anticipated supply' as may be specified in the order, but the order shall be provisional only and shall have no effect until confirmed by Parliament.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in reality a very simple one which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. As I pointed out on the Second Reading there appears to be no power in this Bill whereby in Committee any Minister or Government can ever again consider the question of the figure of the anticipated supply, the 6,000,000 quarters at which it stands. I and my friends have considered this and have wondered on what grounds this figure of 6,000,000 should be sacrosanct. We have come to the conclusion that there are two grounds. One is that it will prevent the growing of wheat on what is described as unsuitable ground and the other that it will limit the amount of subsidy which the consumer is asked to give. My Amendment does not in any way conflict with those two objects, with which I entirely agree, and therefore I shall expect some other argument with which I am not at present conversant. In regard to the factor of increased acreage I do not anticipate that for a year there will be a greatly increased acreage. I was brought up under the system whereby white straw was grown two years out of four and I am conservative enough to think that there has not yet been a method which has improved on that, but it is certain that during the last few years farmers have been growing at least three white straw crops out of four years. I think most farmers will come back to the old practice and that though there will be a greater acreage under the plough, there will not be a greatly increased acreage under wheat.

The second method whereby the anticipated supply may be increased has been indicated by the noble Marquess—that is to say, that the very great quantity of corn now used for feeding will no longer be used for feeding, but will be sold and foreign corn substituted. The noble Viscount made use of a phrase on the Second Reading which in connection with agriculture struck me as somewhat peculiar. He talked about unwanted profit. I know a good many farmers and I have yet to meet a farmer who did not want a profit on any one of the commodities which he produced. I am certain that every farmer who feeds wheat will sow that wheat and it will therefore come on the anticipated supply and will be a cause of its increase. Further, there is the increased yield per acre. Farming in this country of wheat land has admittedly been going from bad to worse. It will now go from bad to better and each year it will improve. I venture to think that in three years time there may well be an increase of at least 50 per cent. on every acre of wheat that is grown.

The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said just now, I thought very wisely, "Who knows about the future?" He said: "Who can tell this, that or the other?" But in this particular matter he seems quite content that it should be quite absolute. Now may I suggest this as being a very likely event to happen? I think the world price of wheat is likely to rise. Lord Stanhope said the other day that he felt certain it would rise, because, as he rightly said, people will not go on for ever growing wheat at a loss. Supposing it rises to 35s. and the anticipated supply rises to 9,000,000 quarters. In that case the subsidy will be decreased by approximately half, while the price that the farmer gets will be decreased to approximately 41s. 6d. A noble Lord said the other day that he anticipated wheat going down to 16s. per quarter. If he is right the cost of the subsidy which the consumer pays will rise to approximately £9,000,000, which I think would be too much. Therefore it seems to me that someone should undoubtedly have the power, after all due precautions, to safeguard the consumer and the grower, to review this magic figure of the anticipated supply, and I think that putting some such power in the Bill could do nothing but improve it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, leave out lines 10 to 23 and insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cranworth.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We hope that it will not be necessary to insert this Amendment, in spite of the powerful reasons that the noble Lord has placed before us. He quoted me as having said "Who knows about the future?" and he suggested that this uncertainty about the future was a reason for your Lordships to insert this Amendment. But when I said "Who knows about the future," I was talking about price, which is a factor that can be dealt with already under the terms of the Bill, and not about acreage. The price, after all, is very largely a question of comparatively temporary economic values, but acreage is far more a question of policy, and the noble Lord is quite wrong in saying, really, that this question, if it is dealt with as a matter of policy, cannot be altered in the future. Being a matter of Government policy it will have to be brought before the House, and if a real case is established for alteration it is open to the House to make it. What the noble Lord is really aiming at is to make it possible for a larger acreage to be in receipt of that sum of 45s.

LORD CRANWORTH

I never said so.

EARL DE LA WARR

No, but the noble Lord wants it to be possible for it to happen. That must be the purpose of his Amendment. Whereas it is only now possible for 6,000,000 quarters to be placed at the rate of 45s., he wants it to be possible for the Committee to report that in future 7,000,000 quarters should receive that sum. In fact, even as the Bill is drafted that really is possible, for supposing it was desired by the Committee, and the proposal were adopted by the Government of the day, for say just under 8,000,000 quarters—the figure is 7,666,666 quarters—to receive the sum of 45s., that can be done under the present drafting of the Bill by the price being fixed for three years at 50s., because in the aggregate a larger sum would have to be distributed over a larger number of quarters, and he would achieve his aim. Similarly, at the present moment, if there were an increase in the amount of quarters grown to 7,666,666 quarters, then the wheat grower would under the existing arrangement receive 41s. per quarter.

We say that it is very much better that you should not have two movable figures, as you have here in this Amendment, but have one kept on a standard basis, and we chose that one as a primary consideration of policy. What do we mean when we say a matter of policy? We think it comes down fairly bluntly to this—on what acreage or what number of quarters of wheat we are prepared to ask the consumer of bread in this country to pay a premium. After all we must realise, as the Minister said in another place, that for the first time for ninety years we have got the consumers in this country to accept the principle that they should pay a levy or tax upon this essential food stuff, and in the interests of the farmers, just as much as of the consumers, it is really not fair to try and extend that principle too much. If we do we are going to lose all that we have gained, and I suggest that in the interests of the farmer it is better to have a stable moderate scheme than lose the whole as we did a few years ago. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that he should not ask us to insert this Amendment—that the actual limit of acreage or of quarters in the Bill should remain a stable factor. As a question of policy the Government have decided that this is the acreage or number of quarters on which we can ask the consumers to pay a premium, and if the Government in time to come, on the advice of this Committee, wish either to decrease or increase the standard price, they can do so.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I do not want my noble friend Lord Cranworth to think that I so misjudge the farmer as to believe that he objects to receiving a bonus. The noble Lord will find, if he turns up my speech, that I said it was the Government who were being compelled to give a profit they did not want to give; it was not the farmer who objected.

LORD CRANWORTH

I cannot say that I am really very much impressed by the reply of the noble Earl. I understood him to say that this was a, greedy gesture on the part of the wheat grower, which I had particularly avoided saying, because I entirely agree with him that the subsidy indicated at the present time should not be exceeded. Then he went on to say that there was machinery in the Bill whereby it could be exceeded. But, seeing that the feeling of the House is probably that this is a matter which would best be met on the lines which the noble Earl indicated, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE, on behalf of the Earl of Radnor, moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (3), to substitute "forty million hundredweights" for "twenty-seven million hundredweights." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to increase the maximum of the anticipated supply. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Cranworth will not agree with me in this respect. The insertion of the limit of 27,000,000 cwts. is apparently meant to prevent land unsuitable for wheat cultivation from being by this measure, in fact, so used. But I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, clearly indicated that 45s. a quarter limited the growing of wheat to land suitable for that purpose. Therefore, I submit that this limitation which appears in the Bill is unnecessary. Surely the price which the farmer will receive for his crop will be the actual thing that will limit the supply, and therefore an arbitrary figure of this sort is unnecessary and undesirable.

Under Clause 1 (1) if the actual amount of wheat grown exceeds the anticipated supply growers will not get all the deficiency payment. This may have peculiar importance if the limitation of the anticipated supply comes into operation. With a fixed price of 45s. a farmer can with reasonable accuracy forecast whether he can profitably grow wheat; but if, as may be likely with such a low limit as that fixed in the Bill, producers can anticipate the possibility of receiving, not 45s., but let us say 35s. or 40s., it will upset their calculations. This difficulty is likely to fall on the skilful and careful farmer through the action of the unskilful, and that result, I am sure, we would wish to avoid. Such a low limit as is fixed in the Bill will leave this country just as vulnerable as it is to-day to any possible combination of importers with a view to raising prices against us. The extension of the limit would at least be a step in the right direction towards a wheat production in this country which would give a certain measure of protection against such action.

It seems to me that if we want to rehabilitate the countryside and bring people back to the land and prosperity to agriculture we ought to take up this attitude that it does on the average cost 45s. to grow a quarter of wheat of millable quality, and if anybody brings to the Commission a quarter of wheat of millable quality, whether it is above a certain maximum production or not, he should be entitled to receive that 45s., because under the Bill, without this Amendment, if there was more than a certain amount of wheat grown then every quarter produced in the country would receive less—the excess over the statutory limit, as I understand, would be spread over the whole production. Therefore it is quite possible, indeed it is likely, that the farmer, instead of receiving 45s., will, in fact, probably not receive more than 42s. or 43s. or 44s. That may be right or wrong, but it does seem to me that if you say, as you do in this Bill, that it costs 45s. on the average to produce a quarter of wheat, you ought then to ensure that whoever produced that quarter of wheat of millable quality should receive 45s. From the point of view of national security we should do what we can to extend the growing of wheat. We all remember during the War what dangers there were owing to the failure of our wheat ships to arrive in this country from overseas; and if we are going to whittle down the advantage to the farming interests under this Bill by inserting this provision, which will undoubtedly reduce the promised 45s. to 42s. or 43s., we ought at any rate to consider the importance of an increased wheat supply in time of war, and not ignore it altogether, as it is ignored in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 40, leave out ("twenty-seven") and insert ("forty").—(Lord Mount Temple.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment is on the same lines as the last one, but in a rather more dangerous form. I think, however, that the noble Lord was suffering from a misunderstanding when he implied in his speech that there was going to be no increase in wheat production under this Bill. Actually the figures are these. At present there are 1,250,000 acres under wheat, and the Bill provides for 1,800,000 acres, which is an increase of 550,000, or about 44 per cent. That is as much as the average of what I think we may assume to be a normal period, the five years leading up to the War. This figure of 40,000,000 cwts. represents an acreage, not of 1,800,000, which we are allowing for, but of 2,700,000—actually more than we ever had under wheat at the peak during the War.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

If the noble Earl tells me that the Amendment would give a price of 45s. to more wheat than was produced during the war, I would not wish to trouble him or the Committee with any further discussion but would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Quota payments by millers and importers.

3.—(1) For the purpose of meeting the expenditure to be defrayed by the Wheat Commission under this Act, every miller and every importer of flour shall be liable to make to the Wheat Commission in respect of each hundredweight of his output of flour, a payment (hereinafter referred to as a "quota payment") …

Provided that a miller shall not be liable to make quota payments in respect of any hundredweight of his output which consists only of wheat meal delivered by him for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food …

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "consists" and insert "is, in accordance with the by-laws of the Wheat Commission, proved to the satisfaction of the Commission to consist." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really of a formal character. It is designed to place the procedure which is applicable to millers who claim exemption from liability for quota payment for wheat meal delivered as animal or poultry food on a uniform basis with the procedure applicable to provender millers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 26, leave out ("consists") and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next three Amendments are drafting, and I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 6, line 26, leave out ("wheat")

Page 6, line 29, leave out ("Wheat")

Page 6, line 30, leave out ("wheal").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 6.— (Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment in my name is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 8, leave out ("wheat").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

By-laws of the Wheat Commission.

4.—(1) The Wheat Commission shall have power to make by-laws for giving effect to the provisions of this Act but no such by- laws shall come into force until they have been approved by order of the Minister.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by the last foregoing subsection, by-laws made under this section shall in particular provide—

1. (c) for the manner in which and the times at which claims for deficiency payments and for payments in advance are to be made in respect of wheat sold by any registered grower, and for all such claims being vouched for by certificates (hereinafter referred to as "wheat certificates") certifying, as respects each hundredweight of wheat in respect of which a claim is made,—
1. (iv) the name and address of the purchaser of the wheat or of his agent and of the person to whom or to whose order it was despatched on delivery and the date of such despatch;
2. (e) for securing that wheat certificates shall not be issued in respect of any wheat until that wheat has been despatched on delivery to or to the order of the person named in the certificate after sale by the registered grower.
3. (k) for securing that repayments in respect of flour exported or shipping as stores are made or allowed only upon satisfactory proof that quota payments have been duly made in respect of the flour and that the flour has been so exported or shipped;

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (2), immediately before paragraph (a), to insert: (a) for the registration of land in the United Kingdom suitable for the growing of wheat, for the manner in which applications for such registration are to be made and heard and determined, for the removal from the register of any land which has ceased to be suitable for that purpose, and for the making and hearing and determination of appeals by persons aggrieved by any refusal to register land or the removal of land from the register;

The noble Viscount said: This is a new point. The Amendment provides for the registration of so-called suitable wheat land. I am very doubtful whether you can take as a basis the definition of suitable wheat land which is, apparently, very frequently in the minds of people when they talk about wheat growing. I notice that when the Bill was first submitted to Parliament the explanatory Memorandum contained the phrase "land unsuitable for the crop" of wheat; that is to say, the Minister of Agriculture contemplated that certain land could be definitely described as being unsuitable for wheat. I noticed also that the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in another place, said: It is not intended to encourage the extension of the cultivation of wheat to land unsuitable for that purpose. He also said: The land which is still suited for the production of wheat should be used for that purpose. That is to say, that the Minister of Agriculture and the Government apparently contemplated that it would be possible to describe certain land as being either suitable or unsuitable for the growing of wheat.

In a book published not very long ago the author indicated that in his opinion he would take the yield of bushels per acre as being an indication of whether land was or was not suitable for growing wheat. I think it is an entire fallacy to take the yield per acre as being in any way an indication whether land is or is not suitable for wheat growing. Your Lordships, with your knowledge of agriculture, I think will agree with me that the same farm, the same fields will either give a low or high yield of wheat according to the treatment of the land both in the year itself and it may be also a year or two years before. The same land, that is to say, may either have a high yield or a low yield. You may have two different fields or two different farms, one of them giving a low yield of bushels per acre though the wheat is being produced at a profit. You may take the other farm with a higher yield of bushels per acre, and yet the wheat there may be produced at a loss. It does not seem to me that you ought to describe land on which wheat is grown at a loss as being more suitable, though the yield may be higher, than land where the yield may be lower and yet the cost of production may be lower and, therefore, wheat is grown at a profit.

Apparently the Government believe that 1,800,000 acres represents the quantity of land which is suitable for wheat growing and that anything over and above that is land which is unsuitable. The Minister of Agriculture said that the limit of 6,000,000 quarters has been adopted and, therefore, it carries into effect the Gov- ernment's intention not to encourage the extension of wheat cultivation to land unsuitable for the crop. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, was proposing to extend it just now. The Minister of Agriculture, according to his own statement, would consider the extension of wheat growing beyond the 1,800,000 acres as being an extension of wheat growing to land unsuitable for the purpose. It is obvious that, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of land in this country which have grown excellent wheat in the past and could grow excellent wheat to-day but are not growing wheat to-day. That land could not possibly be ruled out as being land unsuitable for the purpose. Some of the best grazing country in the Midlands used to produce excellent. wheat.

I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, used a far better definition the other day and expressed a far better idea of what was suitable wheat land in a speech he made and from which I would like to quote. He said: We are anxious to avoid farmers being encouraged to grow wheat on uneconomic land, and by uneconomic land I mean land Where, although wheat can be grown, it can only be grown at a high cost. I agree with him entirely there. I think that the test whether land is suitable is whether or not wheat can be grown economically upon it. If the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, agrees with me about that definition, it seems to me that the case for the Bill is enormously weakened, because the Bill intends that wheat shall be grown on land where it will not be grown economically; that is to say, without a subsidy. It is because I wanted to raise this point that I placed the Amendment on the Paper. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph (a).—(Viscount Astor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the noble Viscount has really answered his own point, because he has made it clear that he realises that while it may be comparatively easy for the purpose of conversation and in one's own mind to define what land is suitable or unsuitable for wheat cultivation, it is impossible to define it to the extent of putting it into an Act of Parliament. If I attempted a definition in relation to this Bill, I should say that there is certain land which in order to enable it to grow wheat would require a higher price for its products than the Government is prepared to ask the consumer to pay. But to attempt to put loosely constructed words like these into an Act of Parliament would land us I do not know where. I find the point put very clearly in an article I read the other day in the Nineteenth Century magazine for March, 1932, where, on page 320, the writer, after drawing attention to the difficulty of finding a watertight definition of suitable wheat land on which to base an Act of Parliament, said: It is impossible to devise a plan which will not plunge us into administrative quagmires and inevitable extravagance. As the noble Viscount, a fervent supporter of National Government, was the writer of that article, and is asking the Government to insert this definition in its own Act of Parliament, I would ask him to withdraw that request, otherwise we might be plunged into administrative quagmires and inevitable extravagance, to use his own words.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I agree entirely with the noble Earl. I purposely put down this Amendment in order to indicate that the expressions used constantly, not only in the explanatory Memorandum but in speeches, really mean nothing. It was in the hope of persuading some supporters of the Bill not to use that expression that I put down the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (c) and insert: (iv) the name and address of the person to whom, or of the person to whose order, the wheat was despatched on delivery after sale by the registered grower, and the date of such despatch. The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (iv) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (e) and insert: (e) for securing that wheat certificates shall not be issued in respect of the sale of any wheat by a registered grower until that wheat has been despatched on delivery to or to the order of the person named in the certificate. The noble Earl said: This also is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 38, leave out paragraph (e) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (k) and insert: (k) for the manner in which, and the times at which, applications for repayments in respect of flour exported or shipped as stores, or in respect of exported bread, are to be made.

The noble Earl said: This alteration is proposed because by-laws for the purpose mentioned in this subsection can be made under subsection (1) of Clause 4 without any necessity for special mention. It is, however, not quite so clear that the by-laws of the Wheat Commission under the general powers contained in Clause 4 (1) can be made to limit the time within which applications for repayment can be made. Therefore we ask your Lordships to insert the new paragraph (k).

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 37, leave out paragraph (k) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (m) to insert: (n) for prescribing the form or forms of contract for the sale of wheat".

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to protect the farmer in his dealings with a milling combine. There is an old story of a farmer on his deathbed asking a miller on his deathbed to ask his sons what commission they charged, and after various sons had said 1s. 8d. or 1s. 2d., or whatever the amount was, the last one said he took the whole and returned the sack. That may be an exaggeration, but it is a fact that when the miller means a big company, and when the farmer is an individual, in all probability the big company will have the better business men to make its negotiations, so I think there ought to be some sort of sealed patent contract which the parties to these sales of wheat under the terms of the Bill to the millers ought to be asked to sign. This is not a very extensive Amendment, and I would put it to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that perhaps he might accept it. When I was sitting on the Benches opposite, and when he was conducting agricultural Bills with his usual ability in the last Parliament, I found occasionally that he was very amenable to arguments I brought forward, and did accept a good many. I hope that he will not show that the fact of his having changed from one Government to another has altered his good nature in that respect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 6, at end insert: ("(n) for prescribing the form or forms of contract for the sale of wheat").—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I can assure the noble Lord that I, too, am most anxious that the unusual position of having a majority behind me shall not render me in any way adamant or uncompromising, but I do not think there is any case for compelling the Wheat Commission to make the by-law that the noble Lord suggests. Clause 4 does definitely give them the power to do so, and it may well be, as the noble Lord suggests, that it would be a good thing for the farmer if it was done, but up to now no representations at all have been made from any of the interests, including the farmers, asking that this by-law should be made compulsory. The noble Lord made one strong point, I thought, when he said that the farmer was acting as an individual and dealing with organisations of millers, but I would point out that we deal with that in Clause 16 where the farmer has the power to form an Agricultural Marketing Board by which he would be able to negotiate as an organisation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Provisions as to Wheat Fund]:

EARL DE LA WARE

There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 36, leave out from the second ("the") to the first ("that") in line 37 and insert ("revenue and expenditure of the Wheat Fund attributable to").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions as to Millers' Quota Fund.

(4) Any profits shown by the audited accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund to have been earned in any cereal year by the sale or disposal of any such stocks as aforesaid shall be distributed to millers in the same proportion as the output of each miller for that year bears to the aggregate output of all millers for that year; and any loss shown by the said accounts to have been incurred in any cereal year upon such sale or disposal as aforesaid shall be recoverable from millers in the like proportion.

In computing for the purposes of this subsection the output of a miller and the aggregate output of all millers there shall be excluded wheat-meal delivered by the miller or millers for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food, and any person holding a provender-miller's certificate certifying that he is exempt from liability to make quota payments during any period shall be deemed, for the purposes of this subsection not to have been a miller during that period.

(5) Without prejudice to any other remedy, any sum recoverable from or by the Flour Millers' Corporation under the last foregoing subsection may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.

EARL DE LA WARR had on the Paper a series of Amendments to make subsection (4) read as follows:— Any profits shown by the audited accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund to have been earned by the sale or disposal of any such stocks bought in pursuance of any such order as aforesaid shall be distributed by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with the Flour Millers' Corporation, to millers in the same proportion as the output of each miller for the cereal year in which the order was made bears to the aggregate output of all millers for that year; and any loss shown by the said accounts to have been incurred upon such sale or disposal as aforesaid shall be recoverable, on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with that corporation, from millers in the like proportion.

The noble Earl said: It is not convenient to refer, as the Bill does at present, to profits and losses which are earned in a cereal year, because a compulsory purchasing order having been made, say in June or July, some of the profits or losses earned or incurred as a result of resale of the wheat would be earned or incurred in the old cereal year and some may be earned or incurred in the new cereal year, and these Amendments, therefore, have been suggested in order that the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation may, subject to the regulations of the Minister, deal with this question on an accounting basis.

Amendments moved—

Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("earned") to ("by") in line 42

Page 14, line 42, after ("stocks") insert ("bought in pursuance of any such order")

Page 15, line 1, after ("distributed") insert ("by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with the Flour Millers' Corporation,")

Page 15, line 2, leave out ("that year") and insert ("the cereal year in which thy order was made")

Page 15, line 5, leave out ("in any cereal year")

Page 15, line 6, after ("recoverable") insert ("on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with that corporation,").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (4), after "in the like proportion," to insert: (5) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the output of each miller for any cereal year, and the aggregate output of all millers for that year, shall be taken to be of such amounts respectively as may be specified in certificates issued by the Wheat Commission to the person appointed by them for the purposes of that subsection; and.

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment and also of the Amendments to page 15, lines 1 and 6, which your Lordships have already passed, is to make proper provision for determination by an independent person, such as an accountant, who shall be appointed by the Wheat Commission after consultation with the Flour Millers' Corporation, of the amount due to or from each miller in respect of any profits or losses which the Flour Millers' Corporation may make in the disposal of unsold stocks of wheat that they may be required by an order of the Minister to purchase at the end of a cereal year. The profits or losses will be distributed amongst the millers in the proportion that their output of flour bears to the aggregate output of all the millers. That, of course, means the ascertainment of trade figures which many of the millers may feel it desirable to have dealt with in a confidential manner. Therefore this Amendment and the Amendments which follow make provision for an independent man, such as an accountant, to have these figures delivered to him in order to assess each miller's share of the profit or loss under this clause and to deal with the matter in a way that will not reveal the miller's trade secrets. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

What I have said covers the next four Amendments on the Paper. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 8, leave out ("this") and insert ("that")

Page 15, line 10, leave out ("wheat")

Page 15, line 16, leave out ("this") and insert ("the said")

Page 15, line 19, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Supplementary provisions as to deficiency payments]:

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert at the end of the clause: (4) Where a deficiency payment becomes payable in respect of the sale of any wheat, the person who was, or is deemed in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act to have been, the registered grower thereof at the date of the sale or, in the case of wheat required by an order of the Minister to be bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation, at the date on which the order came into force, shall be entitled to claim and receive the deficiency payment, notwithstanding that he may subsequently have ceased to be a registered grower.

The noble Earl said: Under the Bill as now printed there is a doubt whether a man in order to be entitled to claim a deficiency payment would not have to be a registered grower not only at the date of sale but also at the dates of claiming and receiving the deficiency payment. This Amendment is designed to make it clear that if a man goes out of business or otherwise ceases to be a registered grower after the date of the transaction which gave rise to the deficiency payment he shall nevertheless have the right to that payment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Eart De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Provisions as to existing contracts]:

EARL DE LA WARR

The six Amendments to this clause standing in my name on the Paper are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 20, line 21, after ("if") insert ("any article wholly or partly consisting of, or manufactured from,")

Page 20, line 24, leave out ("flour") and insert ("article")

Page 20, line 32, after ("if") insert ("any article wholly or partly consisting of, or manufactured from,")

Page 20, line 35, leave out ("flour") and insert ("article")

Page 20, line 37, leave out ("flour") and insert ("article")

Page 20, line 40, after ("payable") insert ("in respect of that flour").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:

Orders for prohibition, etc., of exportation of wheat offals.

".—(1) The Minister may at any time after consultation with the Wheat Commission by order—

1. (a) prohibit either wholly or partially the export from the United Kingdom of wheat offals; and
2. (b) prescribe the conditions, limitations or regulations subject to which such export shall be permitted.

(2) Any order made under the last foregoing subsection shall come into force at such date and remain in force for such period as shall be specified therein and any such order may be varied or revoked by any subsequent order made in like manner.

(3) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of any order made under this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds.

(4) In this section the expression "wheat offals" means the residual products extracted from wheat as germ or for animal or poultry food."

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is one of very considerable importance. I am aware that it may be held to be outside the scope of the Bill, but I would remind your Lordships that if it is your wish that this Amendment should be passed it would be perfectly easy on Report stage to change the title of the Bill in order to bring this Amendment within its scope if it is not already within it. I feel it right to say that this is not a hasty or ill-considered Amendment. It has been considered for months by the Central Landowners' Association—by their executive and by their council—and it has been unanimously approved by them. It has received the full assent of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and since this Amendment has been tabled I have received a communication from the National Farmers' Union that they have considered the Amendment in their full council and unanimously give their support to it. I therefore feel that at all events it must have something to commend it to your Lordships.

I think that all, or nearly all, the modern authorities on agriculture have said that the future of agriculture lies mainly in stock. Captain Hutchinson, Mr. Blundell and Lord Lymington in their recent works have stressed the point, and in your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and others have added their testimony to it. I would point out how important this particular Amendment is to stock breeders. There are, at the present time, roughly fifty million hundredweight of wheat feed used in this country. That is approximately equivalent to the total imports of maize into this country. It will be seen, therefore, that a rise or fall of £2 per ton in the cost of this feed means a loss or gain to farmers of £5,000,000, which is equivalent to the whole of the gain which they would obtain under the Bill as it stands at present. Since last September the price of bran has risen by £2 a ton and it stands at the present day at £2 a ton more than the price of whole wheat.

What is this export of wheat offals to which I refer in my Amendment? It is the export of offals milled from foreign wheat at the port and exported—where to? Exported to our closest competitors in the pig market. And at what price? It is exported at a price much lower than that at which the British farmer can get it from the same source. The millers are able to do this because there are bulk shipments. It is an economic proposition for them to export at that cheap rate, and who can blame them? It is perfectly legitimate business, a perfectly legitimate profit for them. It is a perfectly sound economic proposition. But I would ask your Lordships, if it be an economic proposition to the milling industry to gain some tens of thousands of pounds—it may be hundreds of thousands of pounds, for all I know—is it an economic proposition for this country that a much larger section of the population should suffer a loss of £5,000,000 in order that a smaller section should gain a profit, a legitimate profit, of so many thousands? Not for a moment do I blame the millers for this. To my mind they have behaved extremely well in regard to this Bill and have been helpful, as I think the noble Earl would agree, in every way. But I venture to say that the help which they get, their quid pro quo, should be greater help from flour rather than that they should be given this profit on the export of offals.

I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the reply of the Minister of Agriculture in another place when this subject was introduced there. I find that the Minister on March 1 said: There are, it appears, certain difficulties arising out of our commitments under international treaties. I have, however, received a written assurance from the Millers' Association that their executive committee undertake, so long as a duty is imposed on imported flour, to recommend to the members of the association, and to do their best to secure, that wheat-feed shall not be exported to any other foreign country except under licence to be issued by the association. What does this show? I think it shows in the first place that the millers themselves are perfectly ready that the suggestion in this Amendment should be carried out. They proposed to do it themselves. It also shows that the Minister is remarkably vague on this question of treaties. He is as vague as the farmers are and I venture to say that all the farmer knows about these treaties is that he presumes they bring some economic advantage to industry in some form, but that it is done at his expense and, further, that other nations seem to be much freer to leave these treaties when it suits them. The millers are perfectly ready to carry out the intentions of this Amendment, but if the millers have no power to enforce this prohibition at certain times it is human nature that they will either disregard them if it suits them or elect a new council which will not issue such instructions.

What are these treaties? I look to the noble Earl to do something to enlighten me on that point. I have done my best to find out what they are. I find that Mr. Runciman, replying in another place to Mr. James Duncan, who asked the date of the signing by this country of the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions, said: The Convention was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on November 8, 1927, and brought into force by a Protocol signed on December 20, 1929. It remains in force for five years from January 1, 1930, but any of the countries which still remain parties (namely, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway) may withdraw on June 30, 1932, or on the same date in 1933, or 1934. It is therefore quite clear, I think, that if the Government really wish to extend the benefit of this measure to other than cereal growers they cannot be prevented by any treaty, or at any rate the treaty mentioned by Mr. Runciman. I hope very much that your Lordships will accept this Amendment. In my view it will double the good that this Bill is going to do and it will extend to all the rest of agriculture an equal benefit to that which is now conferred on one section only.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD TREOWEN

I sincerely hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment because I believe it will add enormously to the value of this Bill and do away with what at present is causing deep feeling against the Bill throughout the agricultural community. As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said just now, a large majority of the agriculturists of this country are engaged not in cereal growing, but in the breeding and feeding of stock. It is the most important question we have to deal with. We have always maintained the highest reputation for stock in the world and it is most important that the breeders and feeders of stock should have some real benefit from this Bill. At present they do not see where their profit is coming from. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill stated in an earlier part of our proceedings to-day that the object of the Government in introducing this Bill was to give to agriculture a period of definite stability. I am sure he meant that the Government intended to give equal stability to all branches of agriculture, to the live-stock producer as well as to the cereal grower, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend who moved this will insist upon the Amendment because I think it is of vital importance to the majority of the agricultural community and also of value to the reputation of the Government in bringing in the Bill.

LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM

The title of this Bill is: An Act to secure to growers of home grown millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor; to make provision for imposing on millers and importers of flour obligations to make payments calculated by reference to a quota of such wheat and as to the disposal of the moneys thereby received; to provide for such millers being required to purchase unsold stocks of such wheat; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. That seems to me to confine the Bill entirely to the purchase of wheat and the price to be given for it. I am aware that in this House the title could be altered and probably the Amendment of my noble friend might then be in order, but I am certain that in another place it could not be done because the title of the Bill is perfectly simple and clear and confines the Bill to the purchase of wheat and the price to be given for it. I quite agree with the noble Lord that something ought to be done for the owners of live stock, but that is a different question altogether. Does my noble friend wish to say by Act of Parliament to a man: "You have a certain article and you are not to sell it in any particular place"? Though I hope something will be done for the other industries in agriculture, for the first reason that it is outside the scope of the Bill, and for the second that being an individualist I should be very sorry to see legislation introduced which prevented a man from doing the best he can with his own property, I must oppose the Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

Lord Banbury is quite right when he says that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. At the same time we have to admit that the point which the noble Lord has raised is a point of vital importance to the live-stock side of the industry. All through their negotiations with the millers the Government have realised that point. It is perfectly true that at the present moment the Government have only a written assurance from the millers that they will do their best to secure that wheat offals shall not be exported to any foreign country, except under licence to be issued by the association, and some of your Lordships may feel that a written assurance which has no statutory force behind it is not sufficient. But surely the time to say that it is not sufficient will come if and when we find that the millers are not carrying out their assurance? Speaking from what experience I have had of dealing with the millers, particularly on this Bill, I would say that there is no reason whatsoever for us to assume that they will not carry out that assurance. They have done everything in their power to assist us to produce a workable measure, and there is surely no reason for legislating before it has been established that legislation is necessary. The noble Lord probably is quite right—I should like to have a little further advice upon it—in saying that in a given time it might be possible to abrogate certain treaties, in order to make this legislation possible; but why should we do that when no case is established for the necessity of so doing? For these reasons I ask the noble Lord, although the Government recognise the importance of the point which has been raised, not to press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I quite admit the force of the answer of the noble Earl, and although I have great sympathy with the Amendment I see the difficulties against it. Of course your Lordships are fully aware that as this Bill only affects one crop, and, although it is a very important crop, only affects a comparatively small area of farming throughout the country, there is naturally considerable feeling among other sections of farming that they have been left out in the cold. Therefore if the Government could have accepted this Amendment, and thought it would answer the purpose for which it is moved, I certainly would have urged them to do so, because there is no doubt that if the offals now exported from this country were used for feeding cattle at home it would be of great advantage. I must admit, however, that there is one other side to the question. I know that it is an old story on behalf of the millers that they have to sell their offals abroad because their customers abroad will take their whole supply, whereas farmers in this country will not organise and will only take one or two bags at a time. I can see the reasons why your Lordships should not pass this Amendment, but I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he might try to do something to help the millers in the pledge they have given by organising our farmers, so that they may take this stuff and get it properly distributed amongst them.

LORD STRACHIE

I understand Lord Banbury to say that while he is in sympathy with the Amendment yet he opposes it because he thinks that persons should be entitled to do what they like with their own property. I should have thought that the experience of the noble Lord in Parliament, like my own experience, would have reminded him that Acts are continually being passed to prevent persons from doing what they liked with their own property, and that the proposal in this Amendment in that respect was nothing new at all. With regard to the merits of the case, apparently the noble Earl did not object to the merits but said it was difficult to deal with it, owing to some negotiations, I understand, with the millers. On the other hand he went on to say that the millers had given some undertaking that these offals would only be exported under licence. I wish he had gone further and said he was going to embody that undertaking in the Bill, because it is very desirable that there should be Parliamentary and statutory authority for that. No doubt at the present moment the undertaking will be entirely honoured by the millers, but times change and it might be repudiated.

I suppose the noble Earl is aware that for a great many years this question of exporting offals has been a grievance of the farmers, because they have to buy offals at a heavy cost which in many cases exceeds the price for which their wheat was actually sold. Under Free Trade it was thought to be perfectly right for these offals to be exported abroad, because most of the milling was done at the ports. Then it was bought by our competitors in Denmark and other countries. On the other hand it has always been a great grievance of our farmers that their competitors in Denmark, the producers of dairy products, were able to buy cheap offals while they themselves had to pay a very high price. It was argued that as a free trade country we could not do anything to deal with the matter, and that it was right our competitors abroad should be able to buy cheap offals and send over goods to compete with our own. That, however, is all wiped out. We have now got a Government prepared to go in for Protection, and I hope my noble friend who has moved the Amendment, which has the strong support of the Central Landowners' Association, will go to a Division upon it, in order to show that there are many of your Lordships who are prepared to help the farmers in their great difficulties.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I should not have troubled your Lordships but for the fact that I happen to be in the position of being the only representative of the millers, or perhaps I should say the flour millers' profession, in this House. That being so I think it is as well that your minds should be disabused of some current misconceptions on this subject. If Lord Cranworth's Amendment were carried out, and I have the greatest sympathy with the live-stock farmers on this point, presumably the result would be that the miller would have a worse market for his offals. In other words he would be forced to sell them more cheaply. If he was forced to sell them more cheaply he would be bound to put up the price to the buyer who sells bread. Of course, the way in which he costs his flour for bread is by deducting what he gets for his offals before he makes up his price for his flour. As he competes, or did compete until the other day, with the whole world in the production and sale of his flour, he had to keep his flour as low as possible, and still has; and therefore he had, and still has, to keep the price of his offals as high as possible. In other words, he sells his offals in the best market. So that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, were inserted, a small but possibly at times an important addition to the price of bread would take effect. Secondly, the flour milling industry of this country would be put at a disadvantage as against the flour milling industries of other countries, and as it has only hung on by its eyelids during the last ten years, that would be extremely undesirable in the interests of the country.

Two more misconceptions exist on the subject. The price of offals is finally regulated by the value of offals in relation to other food stuffs. If the farmer pays £7 10s. for bran, he is paying because he considers it as well worth it as, we will say, £11 for linseed. It is the price of other food stuffs which regulates the price he gets for his offals, and nothing else. The other misconception is that the Danish farmer buys in huge quantities whereas the English farmer does not. The Danish farmer is a small farmer. He could not possibly buy in large quantities. The large importing agents do buy in large quantities, possibly the co-operative societies buy in large quantities. There is nothing to stop a co-operative society in England buying in large quantities, and very often they do. But to talk of the farmer only being able to buy two bags of offals at a time is ridiculous. Anybody who feeds pigs on any scale would get through 100 tons of offals in a year, and his society ought to be able to contract for some thousands of tons of offals. So I venture to press your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

The noble Lord says that 100 tons of offal are bought by individuals per annum; but is that the actual practice?

LORD PHILLIMORE

Large pig breeders put in a contract, when they think it is worth while, to their local millers or corn merchants for six months ahead.

VISCOUNT EMBANK

What about the smaller people?

LORD PHILLIMORE

The smaller people naturally buy in smaller quantities.

LORD CRANWORTH

I must confess I find myself in something of a, quandary over this matter and extremely disappointed, not at the reply I got from the noble Earl, but at the position in which I find myself. I regret I was not impressed by the remarks of Lord Phillimore on this matter. I think the price which the farmer pays in this country for his offals is always the lowest he can get them at; there is no other consideration with him. And I cannot see, therefore, that the fact that co-operative societies in Denmark get them cheaper is any help to him. The millers themselves have expressed themselves entirely in favour of the principle of my Amendment, and are going to do everything in their power to enforce the principle. I suggest that they will not be able, but that they are going to do their best I am quite convinced. As I understand the position it is this. If I go to a Division and the Amendment is carried, it would go to another place and be ruled out of order, and we should then hear no more of it. In those circumstances, and not because I am convinced that my Amendment would not be in the interests of farming, because I am still absolutely certain that it would, I feel that I have in reality, but most unfortunately, no option but to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15:

Penalties.

15.—(1) If any person with intent to deceive—

1. (a) forges or uses or lends to or allows to be used by any other person any certificate, receipt or other document issued under this Act or under the by-laws of the Wheat Commission; or
2. (c) knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining any such certificate, receipt, or other document or any payment payable under this Act or under the by-laws of the Wheat Commission; or
3. (d) being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, knowingly furnishes false information, or being so required as aforesaid to produce any accounts, books or 265 other documents, knowingly produces any false accounts, books or other documents;

he shall, unless indicted for the offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

(5) Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or by an auditor by whom any accounts of the body corporate were audited, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "forges," to insert "or alters." The noble Viscount said: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. The words occur in Clause 112 of the Road Traffic Act, and to show how necessary these words are I may mention that I read in the Daily Express this morning the report of a case at Worthing where a man got four months hard labour for fraudulently altering a Road Fund licence. It occurs to me that, unless you do have these words in, there may be a technical defence though it is an act of fraud.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 8, after ("forges") insert ("or alters").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Viscount is quite right in saying that the Road Traffic Act of 1930 has these words, but the Ministry of Agriculture are more up-to-date, and in the Improvement of Live Stock Act, 1931, the noble Viscount will find that the words "or alters" are not there, because it has been held that if the alteration is material then it is forgery within the meaning of the Forgery Act, of 1913. Therefore these words are not necessary.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I must congratulate the noble Earl on being more up-to-date than the Minister of Transport. In these circumstances I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (c), after 'state ment," to insert "or withholds any material information," and, after "obtaining," to insert "for himself or any other person." The noble Viscount said: The words of these Amendments also occur—

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept these two Amendments, but not the following one.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Very well. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 21, line 17, after ("statement") insert ("or withholds any material information").

Page 21, line 18, after ("obtaining") insert ("for himself or any other person").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, in subsection (1) (d), after "false," to insert "or withholds material." The noble Viscount said: As I understand that the noble Earl will not accept this, I will not move it now, but, if necessary, put it down again.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE)

No, put it in now.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 24, after ("false") insert ("or withholds material").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The paragraph makes it an offence if anyone, on being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, furnishes information which is false. The insertion of the words "or withholds material" would mean that a person might be liable for an offence for withholding information which he had not been asked for and which he was not aware was material. It is one thing to make a person liable to a penalty if, after notice, he fails to furnish the information. It is quite a different thing to render him liable to punishment for failing to furnish information which he has not been asked to give and which he may have no means of knowing whether it is material or not. For that reason I ask the noble Viscount not to press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Having heard what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after subsection (1), to insert: ( ) If any person who is duly authorised under this Act to inspect any certificate, receipt or other document, has reasonable cause to believe that any such certificate, receipt or other document produced to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Act is a document in relation to which an offence under this section has been committed he may seize the document and when any document is seized under this section the person from whom it was taken shall, unless the document has been previously returned to him or he has previously been charged with an offence under this section, be summoned before a court of summary jurisdiction to account for his possession of the said document and the court shall make such order respecting the disposal of the said document and award such costs as the justice of the case may require.

The noble Viscount said: Lord Russell, in dealing with a similar clause in the Road Traffic Bill, said that the clause also provided that a police constable might seize the document which he suspected of being a forgery. That was obviously proper because otherwise the document would not be available when it was wanted. For that reason I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the noble Viscount has misunderstood the purpose of this provision. It is true that in the case the noble Viscount referred to there was some point in imposing the right of seizure. But here there is none, because the certificate is quite valueless unless it is produced and, therefore, there is obviously no necessity to have any power to seize it.

VISCOUNT BEIITIE OF THAME

The noble Earl has again convinced me that I am wrong and I ask leave, therefore, to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the penalties. If your Lordships turn to subsection (5) on page 22 of the Bill you will see that it provides that— Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or by an auditor by whom any accounts of the body corporate were audited, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. I have no objection to, in fact I cordially support the first two-and-a-half lines of this subsection, where it says that where an offence committed under the Act by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of any director, manager, or auditor he shall be guilty of the offence. It is quite right that the director, auditor, or manager should be punished if he consents to or approves of any wicked or illegal act.

If you turn to the previous page you will see that under Clause 15 if any person with intent to deceive forges or knowingly makes a false statement, etc., he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both imprisonment and fine. I have not the slightest objection where a company is concerned that the officers should be punished if there is any forgery going on or false statements knowingly made with their consent and approval, just the same as if a person owning a business did it in his private capacity. What I do object to, unless there is some very excellent legal explanation which alters the plain meaning of words, is to say that where an offence under this Bill has been facilitated by neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of a body corporate or an auditor by whom the accounts of the body corporate have been audited they should be guilty of the same offence and receive the same punishment. Surely you should make it possible to impose a lesser punishment on a person who does a thing by neglect than on one who does it with malice aforethought because he wishes to deceive.

Looking at these words it seems to me absolutely plain that it is so and, there- fore, I have placed on the Paper an Amendment providing for a heavier penalty to the officer of a corporation or association who does such things knowingly, and a lesser punishment (namely, a fine of £5 and in the case of a second offence £50) in the case of a person who neglects his duty in some way and enables forgery to take place. Surely in the case we read of the other day in Sweden, you would not punish the director of one of Kreuger's companies who by neglect was deceived by the forgeries of Kreuger in the same way as you would punish a director who was working hand in glove with Kreuger in actually making the forgeries. It may be said that all these things should be left to the discretion of the learned Judge.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Hear, hear.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

I submit, with all deference, that it is not a case of "Hear, hear." I think it is a case for differentiation. As I understand the law, you do not allow a Judge to hang a man for manslaughter; you only allow him to hang a man for murder. You provide a maximum punishment for manslaughter and a definite punishment with a minimum penalty for murder, Therefore, if you differentiate in that case between manslaughter and murder, it seems to me you ought equally to differentiate between the case of a man who does a thing knowingly in order to deceive and get profit for himself and the case of one who does a thing negligently. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 16, leave out ("or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of").—(Lord Mount Temple.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This subsection as it is printed in the Bill followed a precedent which was originally set in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, presided over by Mr. Justice Clausen. I think nearly all legislation dealing with this point has proceeded along those lines. The last time it was used in this form was in the Coal Mines Act of 1930. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, wants to reduce the penalty allowable in the case of negligence. Is there really any need for this distinction? Surely the noble Lord does not fully realise the importance of the point, though he mentioned it, that the penalties laid down in the Bill are maximum penalties. Surely the Courts can be trusted. The noble Lord, I think, suggested they could not, but I suggest to your Lordships that they can be trusted not to impose a severer penalty than the justice of the case demands. It may be possible for a case of negligence to arise which really is so gross as to merit a penalty equal to that which would have been imposed in the case of approval or consent. Therefore I can see no reason whatsoever why we should not trust our Courts and Judges sufficiently to allow them to impose the maximum penalty if they so desire. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon his Amendment.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

This is the most extraordinary statement I have listened to for a very long time. If the noble Earl's argument was carried to its logical conclusion you would at once do away with any limit to the punishment of manslaughter. You would say that "manslaughter and murder are really the same thing, that to manslaughter someone is really sometimes nearly as bad as to murder him; let us have the penalty of death for both offences, and trust the Judge to discriminate between the two." If that is the line on which the noble Earl considers justice is to be meted out I think it is a most extraordinary one.

EARL PEEL

I do not know whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House (Viscount Hailsham) quite approves of this. I do not think the answer of the noble Earl is very satisfactory. He takes the case where negligence has been so gross as to amount to an offence, as he said, "almost equally as bad as the original offence." That is one case, but there are a great many other cases. I may be wrong but as I read this clause it says this: If an offence has been committed with the approval of certain persons, or has been facilitated by any neglect—it does not say serious neglect, but any neglect—not necessarily serious neglect, as the noble Earl spoke of, but any neglect—those persons shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence—that is the point I lay stress upon—and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. I am well aware that the Judge would have a certain limit of punishment. He could have certain discretion, but the point is that it looks as if such a person would be deemed to be guilty of an offence, that is a criminal offence, though he had committed no criminal act of any sort but had only been guilty of an act of neglect which happened to have certain consequences. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but it strikes me that a perfectly innocent person, by a slight act of neglect, may be declared guilty of an offence.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The noble Earl, Lord Peel, appeals to me because he remembers that I once was supposed to know something about the law, but I am now only Secretary of State for War. As my noble friend Lord De La Warr said, this clause was originally framed by Mr. Justice Clauson's Committee which contained some eminent lawyers some twenty-two years ago, and has not so far been challenged, as far as I know, and it was used as recently as the year before last in the Coal Mines Act where, equally, it escaped challenge, although the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will remember that he and I were both careful to try and correct some of the very glaring abuses and faults in that Act. The answer I think to the noble Earl is this. It is quite true that if a person has facilitated the commission of an offence under this Bill by his neglect he (the person who so facilitates that offence) is to be guilty of an offence under the Act. That is quite true. You cannot punish him at all unless he is guilty of an offence. Nobody is going now, criminally, to punish a man unless you have first convicted him, and the conviction means that you find him guilty of an offence. All that happens in practice—I speak with some little experience—is that if the offence is a trivial one the magistrates take advantage of the Probation of Offenders Act, and of other similar provisions, and dismiss the case on the payment of the costs or bind the offender over for twelve months, or inflict a trifling penalty, perhaps even a few shillings fine.

In practice there is no difficulty in differentiating between cases in which there has really been grave neglect, neglect so gross as almost to amount to the commission of the offence itself, and cases in which there has been a comparatively trifling neglect which no doubt has facilitated the offence but which is only in a mild degree culpable. In the latter case the offence would be dealt with by binding over, in the other case it would be met by the infliction of a heavy fine, but the discretion is left to the Court in these cases to deal with the offender according to the magnitude of his guilt. In practice I think the tendency of our Courts in these days has been very much in the direction of mercy and leniency, and there is no ground for fearing undue harshness. I would add that any conviction would be liable to revision by the proper Court in the King's Bench, so that there is no fear of any ignorant, if there could be such, or inexperienced Judge inflicting too heavy a sentence. There would be at once an appeal, and the matter would be put right. I think, therefore, we can trust the Courts in this case with the powers which have been conferred on them in previous cases and which, so far as I know, have not led to any abuses in practice.

EARL PEEL

I am extremely obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and I flatter myself that I have revived in his mind some ancient memories of the law. If I have done that I have had some success. But he brought a charge against me which I wish to defend myself against, and that was that a similar clause to this was put into the Coal Mines Act, and that though I was engaged in criticising that Bill in association with him, I apparently did not discover this particular point. My defence is that there were so many grave defects in the Coal Mines Act that this small one probably escaped my observation. That is my answer to the charge.

LORD MOUNT TEMPLE

Though not convinced I should like to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19:

Interpretation.

19.—(1) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:— Bread" means the article produced by baking flour together with water and salt fermented with yeast, without the addition of any other substance, so, however, that no such article shall be deemed to be bread unless it is in the form of a loaf weighing not less than fourteen ounces. Cereal year" means the period of twelve months beginning on the first day of August in every year and ending on the thirty-first day of July next following; Output" means, in relation to a miller, the flour produced (whether by milling or mixing) by him in the United Kingdom which is delivered by him on sale or otherwise for consumption or use either by himself or by any other person, and in relation to an importer, the imported flour of which entry is made by him or on his behalf for home consumption or home use; Wheat meal" has the same meaning as in the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the enactments relating to customs, the expression "United Kingdom" shall not, in the application of those enactments for the purposes of the Act, include the Isle of Man; and for the purposes of this Act, flour removed from or to the Isle of Man into or out of the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be imported or exported, as the case may be.

(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, all products produced by the milling of wheat, except substances separated in the milling as wheat offals, shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be flour, and any substances mixed with such products, whether milled therewith or subsequently added, shall be deemed to form part of the flour:

Provided that if in any parcel containing flour mixed with substances not produced by the milling of wheat the weight of those substances is sixty per cent. or more of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.

In this subsection the expression "wheat offals" means the residual products extracted from wheat as germ or for animal or poultry food, and if in any parcel containing wheat offals mixed with flour the weight of the flour is five per cent, or less of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.

(4) In computing the output of any miller, flour delivered by him to premises other than those in which it was milled, for the purpose only of being mixed by him with flour or other substances, shall, if the resulting mixture is flour, be deemed not to have been delivered until that mixture is delivered for home consumption or home use.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in the definition of "bread," to leave out the words "article produced by baking flour together with water and salt fermented with yeast," and to insert "product produced by baking flour unmixed with any substance other than water, salt and yeast or other leaven." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is an improved definition of bread. The definition of bread was somewhat criticised in another place so we are submitting to your Lordships an improved draft.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 7, leave out from ("the") to ("so") in line 10 and insert ("product produced by baking flour unmixed with any substance other than water, salt and yeast or other leaven."—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DICKINSON

What is the effect of this paragraph? It defines bread as an article in the form of a loaf weighing not less than 14 ounces. The only place where the word bread is used is in Clause 3, where there is provision made for the export of bread. There is to be a rebate of the sum paid on the quarter of wheat. I would like to ask whether this definition would limit the rebate to loaves of bread and nothing else? There are many other things besides bread exported—things that are made out of flour, such as biscuits and so forth. Is there to be no rebate on that kind of export?

EARL DE LA WARR

I think what the noble Lord says is quite right. This definition will limit that rebate.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 10, leave out ("article") and insert ("product").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to add to the definition of "cereal year" the words "up to and including the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight." The noble Viscount said: This is the last Amendment I propose to move with the consequential Amendment to it. The object is to put a definite termination to the operation of this Bill. The Minister of Agriculture, when introducing the Bill, or at some stage when it was under discussion in another place, stated that the aim of the Government was to help arable farmers at this juncture—that is to say, he contemplated that the help should be given at a particular moment but that it should not be a permanent and indefinite help. The Secretary of State for Scotland, also, speaking in another place, referred to this as being a temporary measure. Now this is either a temporary Bill or a permanent Bill. If it is a temporary Bill then I think we ought to put a definite time to its operation and its life. It seems to me on consideration that if we have a period of six years that would be a very reasonable time during which Parliament should force the public to subsidise a particular branch of an industry.

Not so very long ago the Lord President of the Council, when dealing with the Safeguarding Act, stated that, in his opinion, a period of five years was sufficient for an industry to establish itself. That is to say that if an industry could not establish itself during five years it ought not to get artificial and therefore unnecessary protection. Looking ahead I think we ought to contemplate agriculture being able to continue without special or extravagant subsidies. I have pointed out, and I understand the noble Earl to agree with me, that half the money which is going to be raised under this Bill would be sufficient to carry out the intention of the Government—namely, to give a fair profit to wheat growers who can only grow wheat at 45s. That means that something like a maximum of £3,000,000, calculated on present prices, would carry out the intention of the Government. It is generally agreed that the Bill with present world prices will cost double that, something like £6,000,000. That is to say, as I have already pointed out, that a large number of people will get a profit, not a profit which they themselves do not want to have but a profit which the Government do not want to give them. Therefore I suggest that this ought not to continue indefinitely and that six years is quite long enough for a Bill which leads to such a very large unnecessary expenditure. At a previous stage the noble Earl referred to this as an "agreed Bill." It is not an agreed Bill in the sense of the milling industry having asked for it or having agreed that it is desirable. All that they have agreed is that it can be worked. It is not agreed in any other sense. For these reasons I venture to suggest that for the future of agriculture as a whole—wheat growing as well as other branches—we ought to put a definite time limit to this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 17, after ("following") insert ("up to and including the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight").—(Viscount Astor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I would suggest to your Lordships that the noble Viscount really wants to be too definite at the present moment which is admittedly a most indefinite time. He asks whether the Bill is to be a temporary Bill or a permanent Bill and says that if it is to be temporary then we must say exactly when it is to finish. Who to-day amongst us would like definitely to answer either of those two questions? I know that I would not. What we are proposing is to give to the wheat farmer three years complete security and stability. It is admittedly for this country an experimental step and we are going to watch the effect of what we have done. We have got to see the effect it has on the development of the wheat industry itself; the various technical developments that may take place in the industry; the conditions of other sections of farming; the course of world prices for wheat; the course of world values in terms of money, and the effect that it has on the consumer of bread in the towns. All these are things which we have to study in the next three years. We have also to see how far it is possible to do what the noble Viscount wishes to do, what I wish to do and what I think most of your Lordships wish to do—to develop every section of the agricultural industry as well as wheat. I would, therefore, suggest to the noble Viscount that, having given this three years' definite stability to wheat, it is better to watch events and not attempt to settle a problem when really at the moment we are not in possession of information that would enable us to settle it.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Amendment does not touch the next three years. It proposes to terminate the operation of the Bill not in three years but in six years. What I have endeavoured to suggest is that we could quite justifiably in the interests of agriculture say that six years from now the principle of subsidies to one branch of agriculture should terminate. I will not press the Amendment unless there seems support for it, but I would like to point out that the noble Earl confined his remarks to the question of three years whereas I said that the Bill should terminate in six years.

EARL DE LA WARR

My remarks also apply to six years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert after the definition of "cereal year": 'Delivered' means: in relation to the output of a miller, delivered by him on sale or otherwise for consumption or use either by himself or by any other person; and in relation to the output of an importer, entered by him or on his behalf for home consumption or home use.

The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 17, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next four Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 25, line 19, leave out ("Customs Consolidation Act, 1876,") and insert ("enactments relating to customs")

Page 25, line 21, leave out ("means") and insert ("shipped as stores, includes")

Page 25, line 23, leave out ("exportation or")

Page 25, line 24, leave out from ("stores") to the end of line 26.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert: Flour' means the products produced by the milling of wheat, and includes all such products except substances separated in the milling as wheat offals, and (subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section) where such products as aforesaid are mixed with other substances, whether or not produced by the milling of wheat and whether milled with the wheat or subsequently added, the mixture shall be deemed to be flour.

The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 26, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert: 'Meal' means wheat meal as defined by the Fourth Schedule to the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, either alone or mixed with other substances not being flour.

The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 36, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to substitute the following as the definition of "output": 'Output' means (subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section) in relation to a miller the flour produced by him in the United Kingdom which is delivered by him; and in relation to an importer, the imported flour delivered by him.

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting alteration. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 11, leave out lines 11 to 18 and insert the said new definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment to leave out the definition of "wheat meal" is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 31, leave out lines 31 and 32.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert: 'Wheat offals' means the residual products which, in the process of milling wheat, are extracted therefrom as germ or for animal or poultry food.

The noble Earl said: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 32, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert, after subsection (1): (2) Notwithstanding anything in the definition of flour contained in the last foregoing subsection—

1. (a) where any flour consists of a mixture containing substances not produced 279 by the milling of wheat, by-laws of the Wheat Commission made in that behalf may direct that, as respects that mixture, those substances shall be deemed not to form part of the flour;
2. (b) if in any parcel containing substances produced by the milling of wheat the weight of those substances, other than wheat offals, does not exceed seven and a half per cent. of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.

(3) In computing the output of flour of any miller—

1. (a) where any flour, having been delivered by the miller from the premises in which it was milled to other premises for the purpose only of being mixed by him with other flour or other substances, is, after being so mixed, comprised in his output of flour from the last mentioned premises, then if the mixture is all flour, account shall be taken only of the delivery from the premises in which it was so mixed as aforesaid, but if the mixture contains substances which, in accordance with by-laws made for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, are deemed not to form part of the flour. account shall be taken only of the delivery from the premises in which the flour was milled;
2. (b) there shall be deducted from the quantity which, but for the provisions of this paragraph, would have been the quantity of his output of flour, so much of that quantity as he proves to the satisfaction of the Wheat Commission to have formed part of the output of flour of some other miller or of an importer of flour, as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

The noble Earl said: Since the Bill left the House of Commons discussion has continued between the Government and the representatives of the milling industry and the importers of flour with a view to clearing up ambiguities and difficulties on technical points affecting the flour milling and importing trades. These new subsections are proposed with a view to greater clarification. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, after line 32, insert the said new subsections.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

There are two other consequential Amendments, one of which is to omit subsections (3) and (4). I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 26, line 37, after ("flour") insert ("and bread").

Page 26, line 41, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 22 on page 27.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule: