Lords Sitting of 19 March 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Greenaway—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
CHESTER WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

LIFE PEERAGES: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Thursday, March 7, last, reported by the Earl of Shaftesbury as follows:—
"I have received your Address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my Prerogative, in so far as it relates to the creation of Peerages, should not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure introduced in the present Session on the subject of the limited creation of Life Peerages."

AYR COUNTY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE COR PORATION (QUAY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MARLOW WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GOLDERS GREEN (JEWISH) BURIAL GROUND BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORT GAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is unable to be here, I desire to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a very brief Bill, correcting a mistake in the original Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, and the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, under which, if a tenant of a controlled house makes a will, his widow cannot remain the tenant in law. It seems that if he dies intestate she can remain a tenant in law, and there appears to be no reason why we should penalise the widow of a man who makes a will. Therefore this Bill modifies these two Acts in this respect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Government agree that there does appear to be an anomaly here, and they further agree that the Bill as drafted does appear to remedy this anomaly without cutting across the principle that a tenancy cannot be disposed by will.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a Departmental Bill dealing particularly with expenses in connection with the extension and improvement of the telephone service. Your Lordships are probably aware that capital for development of the postal, telegraph, and telephone services is provided under the authority of periodical Money Acts which empower the Treasury to issue money from the Consolidated Fund up to specified limits and to borrow the money required. The amount authorised under the last Act, passed in June, 1931, was £32,000,000, and it is estimated that this amount will be exhausted by about June next. The present Bill will authorise the issue of £34,000,000, of which it is

157
estimated that £30,000,000 will be required for the telephone service and £4,000,000 for the postal and telegraph services. I may inform your Lordships in passing that the total estimated expenditure for 1935–36 is £10,520,000 of which £9,467,000 is for telephones and £1,053,000 for posts and telegraphs. How long this amount will suffice, of course, depends on the future rate of development. Under present conditions it is expected that fresh borrowing powers will be needed in about three and a half years time—that is, in the autumn of 1938. The actual expenditure and the works to be carried out in each year are subject to the approval of the Treasury. The Bill is a certified Money Bill under the Parliament Act. It is only a short Bill about which I need not, say any more, and I now beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before we pass from this stage of the Bill I should like to raise a certain matter—I submit to your Lordships a matter of grave importance. This Bill authorises an expenditure of £34,000,000 on telegraphs and telephones and the improvement of postal communications, and, if I may say so on behalf of my noble friends, we entirely welcome this development. But I have grave fears about the amount of work and the burden put upon the present excellent Postmaster-General. I say "excellent" because had the pleasure of sitting in another place with Sir Kingsley Wood for some time, and I always felt that his preferment came rather belatedly from his Party. I look upon him as a very able Postmaster-General—indeed he is a welcome exception in the present Cabinet. There seems to be a tendency to put too much work on the willing horse.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to the official duties of the Postmaster-General, which have grown enormously? He is responsible for telegraphs, cables, wireless, telephones, including of course our communications to the uttermost ends of the earth, or very nearly so; he has just been speaking to a Japanese Minister in Tokyo. Then he has responsibility for the air mail, which is of vital importance to the trade and commerce
158
and communications of the Empire. He has a sort of over-riding authority for the British Broadcasting Company with its new development of television. He has lastly, but by no means least, the whole of the Post Office work and its ancillary services, paying out pensions, cash on delivery, parcel post, licences, and so on. I believe he is the biggest single employer of labour in the whole country, and many of his services are of vital importance to the nation, not only to commerce but to national defence. He is recognised as a whole-time official, and paid accordingly.
Now I see in the public Press that he has been appointed chairman of a committee to engage in political propaganda on behalf of the present Government. If any one is going to set out to make the present Government popular that is not only a whole-time job by itself, it is more than a whole-time job; and I think it is asking too much of the Postmaster-General to place on him such a duty. I took the precaution of writing a note to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill telling him that I intended to raise this matter, and I also undertook the courtesy of writing to Lord Hutchison of Montrose, who is also mentioned as a member of this committee of propaganda. I have no question to raise about the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison of Montrose, because as far as I know he holds no official paid position and is not a member of the Government. I see there is also a junior Minister, who is not a member of the Cabinet, mentioned as being on this committee. But to put this burden on the Postmaster-General is, I submit to your Lordships, a most questionable proceeding. I should have thought that his work as a Cabinet Minister, apart from his heavy administrative duties, would have been sufficient.
We are told that the burden on members of the Cabinet is great and increasing and is bearing down even the strongest shoulders. To put this extra work of propaganda on Sir Kingsley Wood and try to make him a sort of British Dr. Goebbels, in addition to his highly important duties affecting the whole of the public, is most questionable—in fact I go further and say it is most objectionable. I should be sorry indeed to see Sir Kingsley Wood breaking down under the strain. I know he will not

159
neglect his duties as Postmaster-General—he is too conscientious a Minister to do that—but his scanty leisure will be devoted to trying to popularise the present Government among His Majesty's lieges. You are putting an impossible task on a hard-working Minister in his spare time which neither he nor anyone else can accomplish. I think that this Bill with its heavy expenditure of £34,000,000 is a very fitting opportunity to lodge a protest against what is happening.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE, UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Although the purpose of this Bill is quite a simple and straightforward one, probably some of your Lordships would be anxious for me to explain the circumstances which render its presentation to your Lordships' House necessary at this time. In Scotland criminal lunatics are at present detained in a part of Perth prison known as the Criminal Lunatic Department. That Department consists of three separate premises and the buildings are surrounded by eleven acres of ground, of which ten are used for the purpose of employing the inmates on agricultural or garden work, and the remaining acre is divided up into exercise yards. There are at present eighty-two male and four female criminal lunatics of widely varying mental characteristics in this Department. The antiquated and congested nature of the buildings and the small area of the surrounding ground prevent the proper segregation of different classes of inmates and make it impossible to provide sufficient healthy occupation for all the inmates, or to follow generally the modes of treatment which are now in use in modern mental hospitals. Since 1922 the difficulties have been accentuated by the appropriation of part of the Criminal Lunatic Department as a State institution for defectives of dangerous or
160
violent propensities. This has always been recognised as only a temporary expedient pending the provision of more adequate premises. With this restricted accommodation available, a large measure of association of the inmates of the Criminal Lunatic Department and of the State institution is almost inevitable.
This association is not considered to be in the interests either of the insane or of the mental defectives, and to remedy this state of affairs it is proposed to erect a new criminal lunatic asylum and a new State institution for defectives on land at Lampits Farm, near Carstairs in Lanarkshire. Some 217 acres of the farm, which is at present vested in His Majesty's Commissioners of Works, are available for this purpose, and this acreage will provide ample ground for the erection of two entirely separate institutions, for the employment of the inmates on agricultural and other suitable work, and for any future extension of the premises which may prove to be necessary. There is statutory authority in Section 28 of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, for the establishment and maintenance of a State institution, but legislation is required to authorise the establishment and maintenance of the proposed new criminal lunatic asylum and the detention of persons in it instead of in the existing Criminal Lunatic Department of Perth prison. This Bill contains the necessary provisions for that purpose.
Clause 1 gives power to establish the new asylum, and provides that it shall be under the management of the Prisons Department for Scotland. The Department are at present responsible, subject to the control of the Secretary of State, for the maintenance and management of the Criminal Lunatic Department of Perth prison, and the clause secures for the new asylum continuity of the administrative arrangements which have proved suitable in the past. Clause 2 provides for the appointment of staff required in connection with the new asylum. Clause 3 deals with the question of an Advisory Committee. At present the existing Criminal Lunatic Department of Perth prison is subject to visitation by the visiting committee of Perth prison. This committee consists of twenty-five persons of whom some are appointed by County Councils, some

161
by the magistrates of various burghs and some by the Secretary of State. This committee has functions in relation to the whole of Perth prison, of which the Lunatic Department is only a portion. It is now considered that a much smaller committee will suffice for the new asylum, and it is proposed that the members should all be appointed by the Secretary of State, who is in the best position to make an impartial selection of persons most suitably qualified for work of this specialised nature.
Clause 4 provides powers with regard to the removal of persons to the new asylum and their detention and treatment therein. Clause 5 provides that as the new asylum will not be a, prison or part of a prison, the provisions of the Prisons Acts with regard to the removal of prisoners or their apprehension in the event of escape, will not apply, and it is necessary, therefore, to make specific provision for the execution of orders for the removal of persons to the new asylum and the apprehension of persons escaping therefrom. Clause 6 deals with visitation by the Sheriff. The Criminal Lunatic Department of Perth prison is subject to visitation by any Sheriff or justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place in which the prison is situate, and in this case Clause 6 confers a statutory right of visitation and inspection upon the Sheriff within whose jurisdiction the asylum is built—that is to say, the Sheriff of Lanarkshire. Clause 7 empowers the making of rules for the new asylum by the Secretary of State. Clause 8 is financial and Clause 9 is the short title.
This Bill will enable a much needed improvement to be effected in the conditions under which a considerable number of mentally afflicted persons in Scotland, whose detention is essential in the public interests, are housed and employed, and will provide better facilities for treatment designed to help them, wherever possible, towards mental recovery and a return to ordinary life. These humane objects need no elaborate words of commendation to your Lord-ships who, I know, will be in sympathy with them. I hope, therefore, the Bill can now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is another Departmental Bill which was introduced in another place by my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General to effect a certain number of useful extensions and improvements in some of the services of the Post Office, as well as to make certain minor amendments which experience has shown to be necessary in the interests of the Post Office and the public. I think I need only call your Lordships' attention to certain of the most important clauses in the Bill. Your Lordships will see that Clause 1 gives the Postmaster-General wider power in respect of the issue of postal orders than he enjoys at present. Under the existing law the Postmaster-General can only issue postal orders up to the value of 21s. This clause removes that limit. It authorises the Postmaster-General to prescribe the form of postal orders without the necessity of making statutory regulations for the purpose. It also empowers him to extend the time during which postal orders may be presented for payment without deduction of additional commission. This is of some importance in connection with a proposal to issue books of the lower denominations of postal orders. The present period of validity of a postal order is three months from the last day of the month of issue when further commission becomes payable, and clearly this period must be extended if the proposed books are to be a real convenience; for some of the orders in the book may be out of date by the time they are wanted for use.
Clause 2 proposes to repeal certain of the provisions of the Post Office Act, 1908, which have become obsolete by reason of the provisions of subsequent Postal Union Conventions. It also embodies a valuable concession to the blind. At present the law permits special rates to be fixed for books and papers already impressed for the use of the blind, and the Bill implements a promise that the special paper used for braille should also pass at the reduced rates.

163
The Bill also extends this concession to cover any articles specially adapted for the use of the blind, for instance, gramophone records. This clause also authorises regulations being made for the posting of packets without prepayment of postage, in order that credit may be given on suitable terms. Clause 3 is required to give the Customs authority to examine letter packets containing dutiable articles and so permit of the introduction of a new service known as the Green Label service. It enables dutiable articles to be sent by letter post. The sender attaches a green label containing a description of the goods and details of their weight and value, and this label embodies the sender's authorisation to the Post Office to open the letter for Customs' examination. The result of its introduction would be that dutiable articles could be sent to this country by letter post, and that letters which are sent to this country from abroad and are thought to contain dutiable articles could be examined and delivered much more rapidly. At present letters containing dutiable articles can be sent from this country to a number of foreign countries. The next important clause, I think, is Clause 6 which gives the Postmaster-General power to deal with postal packets in cases in which the addressee is dead, thus obviating the possibility of delay and inconvenience to the public. It also provides for the amount of written matter which can be put on the cover of a postal packet.
I come now to what is probably the most important clause of the whole Bill, Clause 10. Subsection (1) of that clause extends the penalties imposed by Section 67 of the Post Office Act, 1908, for obstructing officers of the Post Office to other forms of molestation and is designed to give the Post Office staff protection in cases where, for example, people have indulged in improper or obscene language over the telephone to female telephonists. During the debate on the Second Reading in the House of Commons it was suggested that the public should also be protected and subsection (2) has been designed accordingly. In its three paragraphs protection is afforded not only against the improper use of the telephone but also the telegram. Cases have occurred where members of the public have received over the telephone messages of an indecent
164
character, and even of a menacing character. There have also been instances where telegrams have been sent to persons intimating that somebody is seriously ill and when inquiries have been made by anxious friends or relatives the message has been found to be a complete hoax. There have also been cases of annoyance caused by persons who persistently use the telephone to make calls without reasonable cause—usually late at night. This subsection will give the Postmaster-General the necessary power to protect the public.
As I have said, this is a Departmental measure which my right honourable friend hopes may be of use to the public in further improving postal services. I do not think there is any necessity to deal further with the Bill, but I need hardly say that if any noble Lord wishes to ask a question on any particular clause which I have not mentioned I shall be pleased to try to answer him. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I wish to say a very few words upon Clause 2 of this Bill only. I am sure that the blind will be very grateful to the Government for the concession made with regard to cheaper rates of postage on braille paper. The braille paper is very heavy and rather expensive to send by post. That is a burden on the people who are good enough to emboss books for us—there are many volunteers who do that—and also on blind people who write braille themselves. This concession will relieve them of a considerable burden. We also, of course, welcome the reduction of the rate on gramophone records which I hope will be available soon. As your Lordships probably know, considerable progress has been made with the idea of reading braille by means of records. I have not, myself, seen the process, but I believe it is going to be possible for books to be put on records which will then be put on a gramophone and the gramophone will read aloud. That, I think, will be a great boon to the blind, and to have these records sent at cheap rates of postage will naturally be a great advantage.
It seems perhaps a little ungracious at this time to ask for more, but I should

165
have been glad if the Government could have seen their way to make postage free, at any rate for braille books, because at present it is rather a heavy burden on poor people. Some of them, it is true, get the postage paid by local authorities and other bodies, but that causes a great deal of trouble to the libraries. They have to collect the money to pay the postage, and that means a lot of difficult account keeping, while a good deal of labour is involved in stamping books when hundreds are sent off every week from the libraries. If postage could be made free it would save the libraries a good deal of both money and trouble, and it would not involve any very serious expense to the Post Office. If the Government did that they would only be doing what is done now in the United States of America and I believe in most of our Dominions—certainly in Australia and Canada, and I think in New Zealand and South Africa too. In another place an Amendment was put down providing that postage on braille books should be free, but it was rejected by the Government when the Bill was in Committee. I do not propose to put down a similar Amendment in the Committee stage here, because my noble friends and I do not as a. rule move Amendments in this House which have been rejected in another place; but it is a point which I hope the Government will be willing to consider and one on which I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to take action in the very near future.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord who has just spoken it is true that an Amendment was moved in Committee in another place for the purpose which he has mentioned. It was opposed by the Postmaster-General and I do not think it was generally supported by the noble. Lord's own colleagues. I think I am right in saying that. However, I need hardly say that the remarks which he has made to-day will be brought to the notice of my right honourable friend. I beg to thank him and the House for the way in which the Bill has been received.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships very long on this Bill because the principle contained in it was fully debated in your Lordships' House last July. This Bill merely provides for an extension of the cattle subsidy that was then granted by Parliament. Your Lordships will remember that in 1932 cattle prices had fallen to such an extent that it was found necessary for the Government to take action. They did that by a limitation of imports. When that system had been put into practice however, it was found that although we had reduced imports from foreign countries by over 13½ per cent. the gap thus made had been nearly filled up by imports from the Dominions, which had increased by 16 per cent. There was no real improvement, therefore, in market conditions and it was decided that the Government must take further action.
In July last year, when they issued their White Paper on meat policy, it was pointed out that the Government's hands, as from June of last year, had been free to impose restriction upon the Dominions as well as upon foreign countries. It was felt undesirable, however, if only for Imperial reasons, that we should impose drastic restrictions on the Dominions without further consultation with them and without offering certain alternatives. Accordingly it was laid clown that either we should have to pursue a policy of drastic restriction or else—as we would be prepared and willing to do—consider the alternative system of a levy; that is, a small tariff on imports combined with a subsidy to the home producer. There again, that was a line of policy that would have to be further discussed both with the Dominions and with foreign countries who have certain treaty rights which prevent us taking that step without their consent. Accordingly, a subsidy was granted to our producers for a period of seven months in order to enable them to carry on—a subsidy of 5s. per live cwt. or 9s. 4d. dead weight. I think it is generally admitted that that subsidy has from an administrative

167
point of view worked very satisfactorily, and I think your Lordships would desire to join with me in thanks and an expression of appreciation to the Chairman of the Committee administering that subsidy and his colleagues for the manner in which they have operated it.
There are, of course, certain criticisms that require some reply. It has been suggested, for instance, that the butchers are getting too large a proportion of the subsidy. That complaint is justified by the argument that the prices continue to fall. Nevertheless, an examination of the figures does not justify that conclusion. If your Lordships look at the average prices in July, say from 1927 to 1931, you will find that the prices average out at just under 50s. If you compare those July prices with the prices for the last quarter of the year, it will be found that there was a fall of approximately 5s. during all those years. In 1934 very much the same phenomenon occurred: the price fell from 37s. 2d. to 34s. It is perfectly clear on looking at those figures that any fall there has been in those prices was not due to the 5s. subsidy and that the reasons for the continued decline go far deeper.
A further complaint that has been brought up is that of injustice to what we might call the producer butcher: that he has not been able to draw the subsidy because there is no sale, and the subsidy is payable on sale. Not only a number of individuals but also the Co-operative movement have complained of the injustice of the working of the scheme in this regard. This matter has been very carefully considered, and the Minister made it quite clear in another place that his mind was by no means closed upon this subject. At the same time it was felt that this Act was only a continuation of an emergency measure, and that it was desirable for many reasons, particularly that of simplicity, to maintain the scheme as it has been working during the last few months. In a short time—this Bill only lasts for three months, with a possible extension to six—it will be possible, we hope, to devise our long-term policy, which, if we go on with the system of subsidy, will of course have to take this point into consideration.
What has been the cost of the scheme up to date, or rather, what will it be
168
up to the end of this month, when the existing Act terminates? It will come to £2,250,000. In the last Act we visualised the possibility of the cost amounting to as much as £3,000,000, but your Lordships will realise that that is not really a bad estimate considering the lack of exact data. The extension of the subsidy up to June 30 will cost £1,050,000, and if Parliament should decide by Order, as it has power in this Bill to do, to extend the subsidy for a further three months—that is to the end of September—then the scheme will cost £2,100,000. Your Lordships will say that that is a very heavy sum for assisting one particular industry. I would, however, point out that this industry represents one of the largest portions of the agricultural industry, the whole of the meat section amounting to little under a quarter. This money, further, is enabling us to keep that industry going without bringing ourselves into collision with our great interests overseas—the Dominion interests and our interests in foreign trade. It has also given us time to devise a long-term policy that will face the problem of the consumer.
We read in the Press of "The Great Meat Muddle." It would be perfectly simple to deal with this problem if we were prepared to disregard on the one hand the interests of the consumer and of overseas trade, or on the other hand the need for keeping in existence this great and important section of the agricultural industry; but we are determined that our long-term policy shall be comprehensive, and that it shall be understood not only here but also by our overseas friends. Your Lordships are aware that the Dominion Premiers are on their way to this country, and it is vital that we should have yet further time for carrying on discussions and negotiations with them. It is the policy of this Bill to give us that further time.
One point I should like to stress is that, when I mentioned a long-term policy, I visualised not only a policy that is settled by friendly negotiation with our Dominions and our foreign friends, but also one dealing with problems of home organisation of the whole trade. I think your Lordships will realise that those two sides of the problem must be treated as one, and dealt with together;

169
it is impossible, therefore, to lay down, to-day, what are to be the details of our future organisation of the industry here at home, until it has been decided on what basis we are to operate with regard to our imports. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, there is not very much point in going through again this evening the debate which we held about seven or eight months ago, when the original Bill, of which this is merely an extension, was discussed in this House. The only new factor since then has been the publication of the very excellent White Paper by the Government, Command Paper No. 4828, which is an admirable example of clear writing and simple explanation. I do not propose to follow the noble Earl in his discussion of the policies involved in this Paper, because that is not before the House this evening. All we are asked, to-day, is to approve of a continuation of the policy of marking time, of the policy of spending money to keep the United Kingdom meat industry going while the Government are trying to make up their mind after consultation with the Dominions and the Argentine.
I do not even think it matters much who is getting the subsidy. Of course, it is very nice to think that the producers are getting the advantage of the subsidy, but it is a purely temporary and marking-time measure, and I do not think we are able to analyse the actual effect of the subsidy with any degree of accuracy, because it is complicated by the effect of the Ottawa agreements, under which the imports of foreign meat have been reduced 10 per cent., whereas the imports of Dominions meat have increased by 80 percent., I think I am right in saying, in certain categories. Moreover, we have another imponderable, quite incapable of accurate ascertainment, by reason of the fact that the consumption of beef in this country is going down. The actual consumption by the British eater of beef is gradually diminishing, in spite of the fact that there has been an increase of the population. We do not know the exact details of that—possibly the Government can make calculations—but I believe it to be the fact.
170
We have no complaint whatever to make of the administration of the subsidy. We are quite sure that those who have given so much voluntary work deserve our thanks. We do not propose to discuss the sort of planning which will take place when the Dominions have come to an agreement, and when the Government have settled all the difficulties of British investors in the Argentine, and the proposal which I understand Lord Vestey is making to import chilled beef from Australia instead of frozen meat—a problem which is going to be very difficult for the Government to solve. All I want to know is this. I want to be absolutely certain that when agreement has been reached, if in fact one can be reached, which I doubt, this House will have the fullest possible opportunity of discussing the details of that agreement before it is put into force. If I can get a satisfactory answer to that question from the, noble Earl, we do not propose in any way to hold up this measure.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can tell the noble Lord at once, that if there is any agreement come to there is almost certain to be legislation, and this House will have a full opportunity of discussing that legislation.
LORD MARLEY: Will the noble Earl say whether the legislation will be brought before this House without waiting until the end of the period for which the subsidy is available, or whether we shall have to wait until the end of the subsidy?
EARL DE LA WARR: There are two courses of action before us—one which will require legislation, and one which will not. If we adopt a policy of levy subsidy, fresh legislation will be required. If we continue with the policy of regulating supplies under the Act of 1933, then no further legislation will be needed. In that case I will certainly convey to the Government the desire of the noble Lord for a full discussion. But at any moment he can put down a motion and force discussion of the matter.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, it is only with some diffidence that I venture to rise to say a few words in connection with this Bill, because it is the sixth Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading here to-day. I should like, however, to stress the need of the Bill, and to em-

171
phasise the point that agriculturists as a whole find themselves in dire straits—agriculturists concerned in the production of live stock—and that in many cases disaster confronts them. I think it is generally recognised throughout the country that assistance for the agricultural industry is needed, and the National Government long ago made quite clear to the country their firm intention to safeguard the interests of producers in the United Kingdom. I would like to emphasise the point that the fat cattle industry is suffering perhaps more acutely than most other branches of the agricultural industry. In 1924–25 the index figure for fat cattle was 151. In 1934 it was only 90, and even if we continue this grant, as I am hopeful this House will do, in aid of the cattle industry, and even if the agricultural industry directly and personally obtains the full benefit of the grant, its returns would still be below the 1924 prices.
Now I would like to point out that this is largely a labour measure, if I may say so, because if the employer goes bankrupt the labourer loses his job. Since there has been a change of Government, as I personally anticipated the cost of living has fallen but wages have been stationary or have risen, and the agricultural labourer has undoubtedly shared in the slight turn for the better which has taken place in the agricultural situation. In 28 counties the wages of agricultural labourers have increased, or there has been a reduction in hours, and that tendency still continues. The purchasing power of the worker has certainly improved.
The difficulty which occasions this Bill has arisen in large measure because we are one of the few countries which open wide their doors to receive the surplus products from other countries, which are sold here in some cases below the prices which obtain in the country of origin, and we are one of the few countries which have been accepting the surplus products. I emphasise that it is most unwise to disregard the interests of the agriculturist because returns show that in 1931 1,500,000 persons were employed in the industry of agriculture, and the value of their production exceeded £254,000,000. Of those £254,000,000 a very large proportion was derived from
172
the production of live stock. I therefore welcome this measure. It should not, and I do not think that it will, put up the prices of chilled meat and other forms of meat produced overseas. It will tend, I hope, to increase the production of home meat and the consumption of the roast beef of Old England. But opposition to change comes from strange quarters. I believe the shipping industry are opposed in the main to assistance of this kind, but I should like to point out that fat live stock is a processing industry. And, even so far as the meat industry is concerned, taking shipping as a whole a bigger tonnage of cattle foodstuffs will have to be imported if we increase our home live-stock industry, which will add to the number of sailors required, and to the number of ships required, and will, in fact, increase the total tonnage coming to this country from overseas. I do not feel in the least alarmed, therefore, at the idea of any alleged, or expected, injury which it is suggested would be suffered by the shipping industry of this country.
I should also like to refer to the fact that this is a loan. It is not a gift, it is a loan which has to be repaid in due time to the Exchequer. It is well, I think, that the Government should be walking slowly and warily in this matter. The negotiations which have to be carried out with our oversea Dominions are indeed delicate negotiations, and they are very far-reaching in their effect. It is well, therefore, that we should move without undue haste in this direction. But unless this policy be adopted I do not think that there is any practical, helpful, constructive alternative policy to put in its place. It is therefore of great importance that this step should be taken. At the same time there is also a, bigger question which cannot be wholly divorced from that of assistance to home agriculture. Recent events have appeared to many of us very disquieting. Conditions in the world as a whole are far from stable, and it is no good burying one's head in the sand and believing that trouble will never come to these Islands. Therefore it becomes of paramount importance that we should take every reasonable step to maintain, develop and consolidate our great home industry of

173
agriculture. There are many other grounds which might be adduced in support of this measure, and it is with great diffidence that I have ventured to rise to say these few words.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before we adjourn may I mention that for public business we shall meet at three o'clock to-morrow?
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.