Lords Sitting of 24 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

TIENTSIN: CONVERSATIONS AT TOKYO.
3.5 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they are in a position to make a statement about the progress of the conversations at Tokyo.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, since July 15 preliminary conversations have been proceeding at Tokyo between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs before starting negotiations for the settlement of the situation at Tientsin. At the outset of the discussions the Japanese Government expressed the view that if progress was to be made in the removal of misunderstandings and the establishment of better relations, it was essential to recognise the background against which the situation at Tientsin should be viewed. This had nothing to do with His Majesty's Government's China policy, but was a question of fact. Hostilities were proceeding in China on a large scale. The Japanese Army had to provide for its own security and maintain public order in the occupied areas, and was therefore obliged to take action to see that these causes were not prejudiced.
In order to clear the way for the Tientsin discussions, His Majesty's Government have accordingly agreed upon the following formula with the Japanese Government:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom fully recognise the actual situation in China where hostilities on a large scale are in progress and note that, as long as that state of affairs continues to exist, the Japanese forces in China have special requirements for the purpose of safeguarding their own security and maintaining public order in regions under their control and that they have to suppress or remove any

369
such acts or causes as will obstruct them or benefit their enemy. His Majesty's Government have no intention of countenancing any act or measures prejudicial to the attainment of the above-mentioned objects by Japanese forces and they will take this opportunity to confirm their policy in this respect by making it plain to British authorities and British nationals in China that they should refrain from such acts and measures."
In the progress of the conversations leading up to agreement on this formula, it was understood between the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador that it was no part of the intention of the Japanese Government to preclude His Majesty's Government from making representations on any cases that might arise, and His Majesty's Government made it clear that in their view nothing in the formula affected the position and obligations of other Powers. This view was considered by both parties to be self-evident. His Majesty's Ambassador has represented to the Japanese Government the great importance of discouraging Press recriminations and exaggerated claims which can only prejudice the result of the negotiations on the local issues now about to open. His Majesty's Ambassador has made strong representations on the subject of anti-British agitation. It is to be anticipated that as a result of the agreement which has now been reached this agitation will cease. Meanwhile the Japanese Prime Minister is reported to have said that the Japanese Government, now that they had fixed their policy, could control agitation not in accordance with it. I may add that the conversations on the Tientsin position were to start al 9 a.m. to-day.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not know whether your Lordships will allow me to put a short supplementary question with reference to that answer, which is immensely serious and of the utmost possible importance to our interests and the interests of the world. I want to ask my noble friend whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Japanese Prime Minister in reference to this matter. It is reported in The Times to-day, and I propose just to remind my noble friend of some of the phrases used by the Japanese Prime Minister. Referring to
370
British interests and rights in China, Baron Hiranuma said, the report states:
"Such British rights and interests may be recognized if only Great Britain will recognize the relations of mutual aid and inter-dependence between Japan, Manchukuo, and China. Great Britain, he thought, would not assist General Chiang Kai-shek's régime by granting it credits or otherwise. If she did her action would be regarded as hostile to Japan. If Great Britain refrains from granting credits to General Chiang Kai-shek's régime, that régime will be deprived of the wherewithal for financing purchases of munitions through dealers willing to supply them. The basic arrangement established between Japan and Great Britain will not only prove a big shock to the Chungking Government, but will serve as a favourable factor in disposing of the China incident.
Baron Hiranuma said he trusted and expected the British Government to take the necessary steps to bring home the spirit of the new arrangements with Japan, not only to the British authorities in China, but also to the British nation in general."
The question I desire to ask is whether, in view of that statement, the Government are prepared to say that they do not propose to reverse the policy that they have hitherto pursued with reference to General Chiang Kai-shek in China?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Viscount as to the importance of this issue. On the actual question that he has raised, in the absence of an official report of what the Japanese Prime Minister said, I should prefer not to be drawn into detailed comments on it, but I would permit myself this observation. It will be remembered that the Prime Minister, last week I think, said with great clarity in another place that it was impossible for this country to reverse its policy at the dictation of any other foreign Power. To that position His Majesty's Government unhesitatingly adhere.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this question further in the light of what the noble Viscount has said, but the Opposition may require, at very short notice, to raise this question in another form.

CONVERSATIONS WITH HERR WOHLTAT.
3.14 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given them Private Notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make about the reported

371
negotiations with Herr Wohltat in London on behalf of the German Government.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to reports that have been in circulation during the last few days arising out of a conversation between the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade and Herr Wohltat, Economic Adviser to Field Marshal Goering, the Minister in charge of the German Four-Year Plan. Herr Wohltat was, I understand, on a visit to this country as the German representative on the Whaling Conference: it is also part of his responsibilities to discuss matters arising out of the refugees question. So far as I am aware, Herr Wohltat's mission did not extend beyond these matters. In the course of other visits in recent years to this country, Herr Wohltat has met a number of officials and others who are concerned with trade and economic questions affecting the two countries, consideration of these matters forming part of Herr Wohltat's normal duties. It was accordingly in no sense unusual that my right honourable friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade and Herr Wohltat should meet and should discuss subjects in which they are mutually interested and for which in their official capacities they are respectively responsible.
My right honourable friend has reported to me that the conversation turned to the steps that might be taken to produce an improvement in the foreign trade of the principal manufacturing countries. In this connection, my right honourable friend, pointing out that a solution of the political question was a necessary preliminary (by which, of course, he meant a restoration of international confidence) discussed what might be done to remove existing barriers to the development of international trade, including barter agreements, exchange restrictions, import quotas and so forth. Discussion of economic questions of this character led on to discussion of the financial steps that might have to be taken to overcome the initial difficulties and my right honourable friend (who throughout emphasized that he was only expressing a personal view, and having in mind the stipulation that restoration of international confidence is a necessary preliminary)
372
said he thought that assuming that international confidence had been restored there should be scope for co-operation on this matter on the part of the principal countries concerned. It will be seen from this account that there is no justification whatever for stating or for assuming that these remarks, arising in the course of a purely unofficial conversation, constitute a proposal for a loan by this country to Germany.
3.18 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I should like to ask further, if I may, a supplementary question—namely, how this presumably confidential conversation between a member of His Majesty's Government and the representative of another Power got into the Press, and I should like, secondly, to ask whether any civil servant was in any way connected with the inquiries or the discussions that have taken place.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question as to how a report of this conversation got into the Press, I should be extremely grateful if he could tell me. With regard to his second question, as to whether any civil servant was connected with this conversation, the answer, as far as I am aware, is in the negative.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I add this to what my noble friend has asked the noble Viscount in this matter? In his reply the noble Viscount was good enough to say that on previous occasions Herr Wohltat, who is I presume a civil servant himself, had had conversations with civil servants in this country. It has been mentioned in the Press, as my noble friend has indicated, that he has had conversations with a very highly placed civil servant. The question to which I should be glad to have an answer—if I may be allowed to put it—is this: Would it be possible for negotiations of this sort to take place—supposing they had taken place, as has been stated in certain newspapers, I have no doubt inaccurately—would it be possible for this to happen without the knowledge of the noble Viscount himself and his Department?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a hypothetical question, and perhaps I can best answer

373
it by reference to the practical case. In this particular case it was conveyed to me immediately by my right honourable friend long before it became public that he had had a general conversation arising out of his own sphere of responsibility with Herr Wohltat, and that the conversation, which he had pursued on a purely personal and unofficial basis, had ranged over a wider field; and therefore, in so far as the immediate and practical may be a guide to the hypothetical, I hope that the noble Lord will derive a measure of reassurance from what I have told him.
LORD STRABOLGI: Not the slightest.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EASTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
3.19 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess, and, that, until that date, Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess, and, that, until that date, Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in making the Motion that the House do resolve into Committee on this Bill, I would point out to your Lordships that a great many—I think about 75 per cent.—of the Amendments on this Bill are drafting, and with the consent of your Lordships I would propose, in order to save time, when we come to such a clause—and there are a great many clauses on which there are nothing but drafting Amendments—to ask the Lord Chairman to put those Amendments en bloc. Of course, I need not say that I am ready at all times to answer any questions on any Amendment that may be raised. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [The Representative Advisory Council]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The first Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("to be called") and insert ("hereinafter referred to as").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [The Export Development Committee]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Both Amendments on this clause are drafting, and with your Lordships' permission I shall move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out from the beginning to the second ("the") in line 43 and insert ("The Cotton Industry Board shall appoint a committee (hereinafter referred to as")
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("(j)") and insert ("(i)").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to redundancy schemes.
(3) A redundancy scheme—
(b) may contain provision for the making of payments by the board administering the scheme to persons of any class specified in the scheme who, having been employed in or about a mill to which the scheme applies, have lost that employment, if the loss of employment appears to that board to be ascribable to the operation of the scheme;
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The first five Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments, and I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 14, after ("elimination") insert ("or reduction")
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("or other property")
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("purchasing")
Page 8, line 6, after ("scheme") insert ("to acquire plant")
Page 8, line 18, leave out from ("committee") to ("consisting") in line 19.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning of paragraph (b), to substitute "shall" for "may." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Snell and myself, I beg to move this Amendment, which is rather more than a drafting Amendment. It is to leave out "may" and insert "shall." Your Lordships will see that this would have the effect of making it obligatory to bring forward some scheme of compensation for operatives who are displaced by schemes of amalgamation. On the Second Reading I indicated on behalf of my noble friends that we should be moving some such Amendment, and I am glad to say we got approval from the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, and from some other noble Lords. I hope we shall get the support of noble Lords on this occasion in the event of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill not being able to accept this Amendment.
It may be said that it cannot be helped if people suffer as a result of a scheme of amalgamation. There must be progress, rationalisation, and so on, and in that case, if people are displaced, it is bad luck on them; they must go on
376
the "dole," and so on. Against that we maintain that when Parliament itself encourages, or indeed insists, on these schemes of amalgamation, then Parliament has the obligation to see that the innocent victims do not suffer unnecessarily. That principle was accepted in three major Bills in all of which the the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, both had a part. These Bills were brought in by a Conservative or Coalition Government, and in each case there was to be compensation not only for directors but also for the workpeople. These three Bills which I would cite—there are others—are, first, the great Railway Amalgamation Bill, brought in by Sir Eric Geddes as Minister of Transport soon after the War. There was compensation for those who lost their offices or positions by reason of these amalgamations. The second was the Electricity Supply Bill. There was there the same principle of compensation for engineers and others displaced as the result of an act of your Lordships' House. The third leading case was the London Passenger Transport Bill, where the same principle applied. When the Coal Mines Bill was before your Lordships' House last year we attempted to bring about the same safeguard for working men displaced by amalgamations forced by an Act of Parliament. Then we got a great deal of support from members of your Lordships' House sitting in other parts of the House, not only verbal support, but voting support, on the question of principle.
The cotton industry, we suggest, has a particularly strong claim for this safeguard, especially where the older operatives are concerned. This was referred to by Lord Cawley on the Second Reading. Men and women who have reached mature years—forty or fifty years of age—as cotton operatives, are at the height of their skill, but it is most difficult for them to get other employment. Your Lordships are aware that it is most difficult for the old workmen in any industry to get entirely new employment. It is particularly difficult for cotton workers because of the highly specialised, almost hereditary skill they have. We consider it right that they should get some compensation, and no doubt some of the schemes could make differentiation on the ground of age. We do not wish to lay

377
down what a scheme should be. We do not want to make amalgamations impossible because of expense. We realise the difficulty which might be created in that way. We would be quite prepared to accept a scheme under which the older people got compensation.
Compensation in a Bill of this kind, as in the case of the railways, is very different from the ordinary allowances paid by the labour exchange to people out of work. The man who has been in steady employment for many years does not relish going to the labour exchange. These Lancashire workmen are proud people, and it would hurt them to go to the labour exchange, but if they got compensation as a matter of right, because their mill had closed down for the good of the industry, that would be different—their pride would be salved. We believe that this Amendment is necessary on the ground of justice, and I appeal to your Lordships to support it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD CAWLEY: It is a little unfortunate that the word "may" should appear in this connection. It has induced the belief among the workers that they also are going to get something out of the Bill. On the other hand, there are certain people on the other side, among the employers, who think this clause will never come into operation because the word "may" is there. I do not say that of all the employers, or of any large section of them, but I know the feeling does exist that this will never be carried out. This redundancy scheme will, if it works out as the promoters of the Bill believe, be an advantage to quite a number of people. A number of employers will get for their works a price which they could not possibly get now, when probably they would have to close down in a comparatively short time and get only scrap prices, whereas now they will get the price of a willing seller. The operatives who are not displaced will get presumably full work or at any rate much more work than they do at present, and a corresponding advantage in wages. Even the banks will get something out of it, because some of their loans which are in a very precarious position at present will be repaid, and others will be put in a better position because of the removal of
378
competition from the firms who had that money advanced to them. It seems rather hard that the displaced operatives should not be definitely assured under the Bill of getting some slight compensation. I, like the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, do not think that the compensation could be very widely extended, but I do think they have a right to the sympathy of your Lordships in this matter.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Your Lordships will remember that the Bill now under consideration is based very largely on proposals which were put forward by the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations. I made that clear in my speech on Second Reading. That Committee, which is representative of all sections of the employees and operatives in the cotton industry in Lancashire, included in their proposals the provision that in any scheme compensation for operatives "might" be provided. No doubt the representatives of the operatives had good reason for consenting to this and it seems that they were wise in doing so. It is far from certain that a provision that schemes "must" provide for compensation would improve the position of the operatives. Indeed it might have an entirely contrary effect.
It must be borne in mind that this Bill does not make it compulsory for any scheme of price fixing or of redundancy to be brought forward at all. It only enables those sections wishing to do so to prepare schemes and to send them forward for proper consideration. In some sections of the industry it might well be found impracticable to find the money necessary to provide compensation to operatives. If compensation were a compulsory feature for all schemes, in the opinion of the Government it would mean that a great many schemes would not be brought forward. If this happened the operatives in the section as a whole would lose one of the benefits which should accrue under redundancy schemes without obtaining any compensatory advantage. It must not be assumed that a redundancy scheme without compensation for the operatives is of no value to the operatives themselves. One of the evils in the cotton industry in recent years has been not only total lack of employment of some employees, but also the underemployment and irregularity of employment of many others. The main

379
purpose of a redundancy scheme is to adjust productive capacity to the demand for the products of the industry.
The noble Lord opposite has mentioned in support of his Amendment what was done in the Railways Act of several years ago and the Electricity Act. He mentioned that provision was made in those Acts for compensation for employees, but I think that he overlooked the circumstances which gave rise to those Acts. Those provisions find no parallel in the redundancy scheme which we now have under consideration. There are three important points of difference. In the first place, the reorganisations with which those Acts were concerned were compulsory reorganisations ordered by Parliament; secondly, they related to industries like railways and electricity undertakings of a quasi-monopolistic character in which the question of competitive power does not loom so large and where there is no question of finding and maintaining export markets. Also, it must be remembered that, certainly in the railway industry, the employees are not included in the unemployment insurance and are unable to obtain unemployment benefit during their period of unemployment. I think your Lordships will agree that those provisions relate to very different circumstances and do not really afford any guidance in dealing with this Bill. It is clearly desirable to consolidate the industry on a sound and stable basis with
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
the expectation that more economical production will pave the way for an expansion of trade and further employment. I confidently recommend this to your Lordships as the best service they can render to the cotton industry and for reasons I have stated I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am afraid my noble friends will have to ask your Lordships to divide on this matter. It is a great question of principle, and the noble Lord would not expect us to accept his reply as disposing of our case.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: As this matter is going to a Division I should like to say in a few words why I intend to support the Amendment which has been moved. The arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and enforced by my noble friend Lord Cawley, are potent and valid in this case. Although it is true the Bill does not itself compel the adoption of redundancy, it gives statutory powers to the authorities set up under the Bill to impose such a scheme, and that being so the measure is, in effect, one of State action. Therefore Parliament has its responsibility for seeing that hardship is not inflicted upon those persons who are concerned. For those reasons I propose to vote for the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the word "may" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Feversham, E.

Askwith, L.

Grey, E.

Cranworth, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V. (L. President.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Dunleath, L.

Minto, E.

Ebury, L.

Radnor, E.

Harlech, L.

Zetland, M.

Stanhope, E.

Mancroft, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) (L. Steward.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Rushcliffe, L.

Bridport, V. [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Airlie, E.

Halifax, V.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Cawley, L.

Marley, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Samuel, V.

Rea, L.

Denman, L.

Snell, L.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Addison, L. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 41, after ("applies") insert ("or applied.")—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.43 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, in subsection (3) at the end of paragraph (b), to insert:
"Provided that such payments need not be uniform for every individual operative, but may be varied to meet their differing conditions."
The noble Lord said: I think it will be agreed that, bad as may be the lot of some of the younger men, the lot of the older men is worse. I need not waste time by labouring that point. It may be said that my Amendment is quite unnecessary, and that discrimination between one class of operatives and another can be carried out ender the wording of the clause. I agree that that may be so, and that any committee appointed under the Cotton Industry Board will probably take the same view as I do, and as I think your Lordships do, about the need of these men. I have a strong belief also that when a number of men are displaced there will be a feeling among the younger element that there should be share and share alike in anything that there is to divide. My purpose in putting down the Amendment is to strengthen the hands of any committee that is giving out relief in the determination to help those who suffer most. That was my sole idea in putting this Amendment on the Paper. It would also, I think, be welcomed by the leaders of labour who might sit on such a committee as a help when they had to go back to explain their actions to their own people.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, at end, insert ("Provided that such payments need not be uniform for every individual operative, but may be varied to meet their differing conditions.")—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: In many ways the Government have every sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, but they are advised that the present wording of this clause gives full power to the framers of the scheme to include any such variation in the rates
382
of compensation, and that it is quite unnecessary to make special provision for it. Moreover, if special provision of the kind proposed were made, it might throw doubt on the scope of the clause otherwise, and might result in unduly restricting the clause in regard to other matters. I should like to refer again to the fact that the Bill itself only provides the authority for schemes of this kind to be prepared and examined. The framers of the scheme must themselves decide on the details, and the best service we can render is to leave them as free as possible to make any provisions that may be appropriate to their particular section of the industry. The Government, for these reasons, cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD CAWLEY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Provisions as to price schemes.
(5) The provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of authorising the sale of any product or the subjection of any product to any process at a price or for a charge less than the normal minimum price or charge determined in relation thereto under a price scheme.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next five Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 21, leave out ("the next following paragraph") and insert ("paragraph (f) of this subsection")
Page 11, line 29, after ("price") insert ("which is")
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("not less than the price") and insert ("does not fall short thereof by more than the amount")
Page 11, line 35, after ("charge") insert ("which is")
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("not less than the charge") and insert ("does not fall short thereof by more than the amount").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to insert at the end of subsection (5):
"and, in relation to any person who, by virtue of Part II of the said Schedule, is authorised to sell that product or subject it to a process at a price or for a charge lower than the said normal minimum price or charge, any determination made in relation

383
to that product under provisions of the scheme having effect by virtue of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if any reference in that determination to that normal minimum price or charge were a reference to the said lower price or charge."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to subsection (5), which gives effect to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule. These provisions permit any producer to apply to the Cotton Industry Board on the ground that his costs of manufacture, with the addition of the appropriate allowance for depreciation and profit, enables him to sell his goods at a lower price than the normal minimum price. If the Cotton Industry Board, on examination, find that his claim is justified they authorise him to sell his goods at the lower price. As the clause is drafted in the Bill at present, this special allowance can be made only from the normal minimum price. It is provided, however, in Clause 9 (1) (e) that a general reduction of the minimum price may be made, in regard to large orders, by all producers. The purpose of the present Amendment is to enable the exceptionally efficient producer to obtain the advantage of his lower costs of production on the large orders also.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 17, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) If, with respect to any price scheme, it appears at any time to the Cotton Industry Board that a normal minimum price or normal minimum charge for the time being determined under the scheme exceeds the price or charge to the determination of which at that time the Cotton Industry Board could lawfully have consented, the Cotton Industry Board shall forthwith serve on the board administering the scheme a notice in writing specifying the sum which by virtue of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act would have been the maximum limit in relation to any determination of that normal minimum price or normal minimum charge made at that time, and requiring the last-mentioned board to reduce the normal minimum price or normal minimum charge to an amount not exceeding the sum so specified in the notice: and if, at the expiration of the period of fourteen days beginning with the date of the service of the said notice, the board administering the scheme have not complied with the requirements of the notice, the Cotton Industry Board shall themselves determine a normal minimum price or normal minimum charge in accordance with the said requirements, and that
384
determination shall have effect as a determination of the board administering the scheme."
The noble Lord said: Clause 9 (1) (d) requires the Cotton Industry Board, in authorising the normal minimum price determined under a price scheme by the price board and any subsequent increases, to satisfy themselves that the price does not exceed the "maximum limit" prescribed in Part I of the Third Schedule (which is made up from the sum of the amount specified in the scheme for depreciation and profit and the cost as determined by the Cotton Industry Board). It may happen, however, that owing to a change in circumstances after the price has been authorised, as for example, a fall in the price of raw materials or a decline for some other reason in the cost of production, the normal minimum price may at a particular moment exceed the "maximum limit" if calculated at that moment. If that occurs the normal minimum price should obviously be reduced. There is at present however no power in the Bill for the Cotton Industry Board to revoke their consent in such circumstances. This Amendment empowers the Cotton Industry Board to review any minimum price if it appears to them at any time to exceed the maximum limit prescribed in Part I of the Third Schedule, and if they find it exceeds that limit to notify the board administering the price scheme. If within fourteen days that board have not reduced the price, the Cotton Industry Board are empowered themselves to determine the reduced normal minimum price.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next two Amendments are both drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 20, after ("provision") insert ("(a)")
Page 15, line 27, at end insert ("and (b) for determining the powers of the arbitrator on any such reference") (Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Provisions for securing due operation of price schemes in relation to merchants, &c.]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The Amendments on this clause are purely drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("any determination of the board administering")
Page 18, line 33, leave out ("powers") and insert ("power")
Page 18, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to delete any entry made in the general register in respect of")
Page 19, line 14, leave out ("a determination of the board administering").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Initial poll in relation to a sectional scheme]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The Amendments on this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 18, leave out ("of the") and insert ("on which the Cotton Industry Board publish the said")
Page 21, line 9, leave out from the beginning to ("apply") in line to and insert ("the period of twenty one days beginning with the date on which the notice under subsection (1) of this section relating to the scheme was published")
Page 21, line 23, leave out ("until") and insert ("during the period beginning with the date on which the notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection was published and ending with").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [The Rayon Committee]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 23, after ("from") insert ("staple").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On Clause 15 I should like to ask a question. Your Lordships will notice in subsection (2) the words:
"If, upon a Motion made in each House of Parliament on behalf of His Majesty's Government …"
I have never seen that provision in a Bill before and I should be much obliged to
386
my noble friend if lie would explain the reason for its inclusion here.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I very much regret that I cannot, at the moment, give the explanation desired by my noble friend, but if he will give me time I will of course, find out and then let him know at the next stage or send him a note about the matter.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am very much obliged to my noble friend.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Consideration of sectional schemes by Board of Trade and submission to Parliament]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: These amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 37, after ("Board") insert ("and shall, as soon as may be after so doing, publish, in such manner as they think best adapted for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the Cotton Industry Board will cause a poll to be taken on the question whether it is expedient that the scheme as modified should have statutory effect, if, within the period of seven days beginning with the date of the publication of the notice, a request in that behalf is made in writing to the said Board by the requisite proportion of persons named in the said list")
Page 27, line 38, leave out from ("within") to ("the") in line 2 on page 28, and insert ("the said period of seven days such a request is so made to them")
Page 29, line 34, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 36 and insert ("mills to which the scheme applies").— (Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Revocation, suspension of operation and expiration of sectional schemes]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 4, leave out ("which has come into") and insert ("for the time being in").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Fees and contributions payable to Cotton Industry Board by the industry]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg to move the first drafting Amendment
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 13, leave out ("woollen and worsted") and insert ("wool textile").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 19, leave out from ("the") to ("research") in line 20 and insert ("objects of which are or include".)—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 23, leave out from the first ("the") to ("as") in line 23 and insert ("wool textile industry or the silk industry").—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask a question on this last Amendment? "Silk Industry" comes in here. We have been talking earlier about rayon or artificial silk. Am I right in saying that this is the first time the silk industry comes in in this form? I want to make certain on that point.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question at short notice. I will find out and let the noble Lord know either privately or at a later stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: There may just be a misprint. It seems rather incongruous in this context, that is all.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I will make inquiries.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Exchequer assistance to boards administering redundancy schemes]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Both these Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, line 42, leave out ("employees") and insert ("persons")
Page 36, line 43, leave out from ("employment") to the end of line 44.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Form, publication, validity and commencement of orders confirming sectional schemes]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 7, after ("the") insert ("period of").— (Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Power of the Cotton Industry Board and of the Board of Trade to obtain information]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 34, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Special provisions as to persons engaged in certain businesses.
29.—(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to every person who satisfies the condition that, in the preceding calendar year, or (if in that year he did not carry on business by way of any of the activities which by virtue of this Act are to be treated as part of the industry) in the last calendar year in which he so carried on business, at least two-thirds of the total quantity of products of the industry manufactured by him consisted of one or more of the following products, that is to say,—

(a) one or more of the following commodities, that is to say, sewing thread, Lancaster cloth, American cloth, surgical dressings and any such commodities as the Cotton Industry Board, with the approval of the Board of Trade, may from time to time designate for the purposes of this section;

(b) fabrics which, in fact, have not been used otherwise than in the manufacture of tyres, rubber hoses or such other articles made partly of rubber as the Cotton Industry Board with the approval of the Board of Trade, may from time to time designate for the said purposes, and

(c) goods which, in fact, have not been used otherwise than as ingredients of such commodities or fabrics as aforesaid,

and the further condition that he possesses a certificate of a qualified accountant that in the preceding calendar year he satisfied the first-mentioned condition.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:

389
"(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to every person who holds a certificate, given by a qualified accountant, that of the value of the total quantity of products of the industry manufactured by the first mentioned person in the preceding calendar year at least two-thirds was the value of one or more of the following produces, that is to say,—

(a) sewing thread, Lancaster cloth, American cloth and any such commodities as the Cotton Industry Board, with the approval of the Board of Trade, may from time to time designate for the purposes of this paragraph;

(b) surgical dressings, and

(c) products which—

(i) in a case where the said person is not a company, have not been sold by that person, and have not been used otherwise than in the manufacture by him of one or more of the following commodities, that is to say, commodities mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection, surgical dressings (whether products of the industry or not), tyres, rubber hoses and such other commodities as the Cotton Industry Board, with the approval of the Board of Trade, may from time to time designate for the purposes of this subparagraph, or

(ii) in a case where the said person is a company, have not been sold by that company otherwise than to a related company for the purpose of being used by that or another related company in the manufacture of one or more of the commodities mentioned in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, and have not been used otherwise than for the purpose of the manufacture, by the first-mentioned company or a related company, of one or more of those commodities.

(2) In the preceding subsection—

(a) the expression 'surgical dressings' includes any articles designed to be worn on, or applied to, the body for curative, prophylactic or hygienic purposes only, but does not include handkerchiefs; and

(b) the expression 'related company' means—

(i) a company which is subsidiary to the company in question, or a company to which the company in question is subsidiary; or

(ii) a company subsidiary to a company to which the company in question is also subsidiary or a company subsidiary to a company being itself subsidiary to a company to which the company in question is also subsidiary;

and for the purposes of this paragraph, a company shall be deemed to be subsidiary to another company if, in relation to that other company, it is a subsidiary company as defined by Section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Companies Act, 1929."
The noble Lord said: Clause 29 makes provision for persons mainly engaged in the manufacture of special products such
390
as sewing thread, American cloth, etc., which are outside the ordinary range of the cotton industry, and of products used in the manufacture of those special products. Such persons are exempted from redundancy schemes and price schemes so far as the special products are concerned. The original intention was to include in this class the makers of the special products and their associated concerns suplying yarn or cloth for manufacture into these products, but considerable difficulty was encountered in drafting the clause so as to cover "associated concerns." Accordingly in the Bill as introduced it was provided that any concern with an output comprising, as to at least two-thirds, these products of the yarn or fabric used in their manufacture, should be covered by the exemption in the clause.
During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place the point was made that firms whose output of the ingredients was above the two-thirds limit would not be subject to price schemes although they would be selling in competition with firms whose proportion was below the two-thirds and therefore subject to price schemes. The Government promised to consider the matter further, and on Report stage in another place they introduced an Amendment entirely exempting suppliers of yarn and fabric for the special products—whether they were above the two-thirds limit or below it. In the discussion on this Amendment it became clear the exemption was now on too wide a basis in that it would leave outside price schemes a very considerable quantity of yarn and fabric and that this in some cases might well render price schemes unworkable. The Government, therefore, undertook to give further consideration to this matter, and following considerable discussion with the interests concerned during the past few days it was decided to return nearer to the original conception and to limit the exemption to the makers of the special products and their "related" companies.
This is the purpose of the Amendment, which defines "related company" by reference to the definition of subsidiary company in the Companies Act, 1929—that is, a company being subsidiary if another company appoints a majority of its directors or has more than 50 per cent. of the voting power. As now

391
amended the clause reflects the understanding reached before the Bill was introduced between the cotton industry and the makers of the special products. Many difficulties have been encountered in giving effect to this understanding but the Government feel that the clause is now on a more satisfactory basis. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 5, leave out from ("commodities") to end of subsection and insert ("and products as are mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This is drafting also.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 23, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following clause:
Incidental provisions as to Committees.
"34. The Cotton Industry Advisory Committee, the Representative Advisory Council, the Export Development Committee and the Rayon Committee may act notwithstanding a vacancy among the members thereof; and all acts done at any meeting of any such committee or of the said council shall, notwithstanding that it is afterwards discovered -that there was some defect in the appointment or qualifications of a person purporting to be a member of the committee or council, be as valid as if that defect had not existed."
The noble Lord said: The proposed Amendment enables the Cotton Industry Advisory Committee, the Representative Advisory Council, the Export Development Committee and the Rayon Committee to act notwithstanding a vacancy among their members. It also prevents acts of these bodies being invalidated if it is discovered afterwards that there was some defect in the appointment or qualifications
392
of the members. These are incidental provisions customarily made with regard to Committees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Interpretation]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: These three Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 15, leave out ("a")
Page 51, line 15, leave out ("distributor") and insert ("distributors")
Page 51, line 23, leave out from ("includes") to the end of line 28 and insert ("in relation to any time when the scheme has not yet come into operation, or any time during the continuance in force of the scheme when the provisions of the scheme empowering the board administering it to acquire plant are not in operation, a cotton mill any plant in which that board could lawfully acquire if the scheme or those provisions thereof, as the case may be, were in operation at that time; and mill to which the scheme applied shall be construed accordingly;").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF THE COTTON INDUSTRY BOARD.
Membership.
1. The Board shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Board of Trade; and of the members of the Board, three (of whom one shall be designated by the Board of Trade as chairman of the Board) shall be persons appearing to the Board of Trade to have special knowledge of the industry, appointed as being independent persons.
4 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "fifteen" and insert "seventeen." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Snell and myself, I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will notice that the Cotton Industry Board, representing all these different interests—ten more or less distinct interests—is to have fifteen members. By this Amendment we want to increase that number to seventeen, and if you will look a little further

393
on in the Marshalled List of Amendments you will see the consequential Amendments, which would increase the number of persons representative of the operatives in the spinning and doubling from one to two, and the persons representative of the operatives in the weaving industry also from one to two. The object of the series of Amendments is to give one extra weaver and one extra spinner to represent the work people. On this whole body, with its highly important duties, out of fifteen members there are only to be three representing the operatives, the third representing the workers in the finishing industry.
We think there should be these extra members for two main reasons. The first is that the one man representing the spinners and doublers, for example, will be by himself, with immense responsibilities, and he cannot perhaps always be there. We think it is better to have a second representative. The same thing, of course, applies to the one member who will represent the whole of the vast weaving industry. The other reason is this. The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, when he replies will no doubt say that this is the result of long negotiations by the unions and the employers and the Board of Trade, that the union leaders accepted this representation, and that we should not go back upon it; but since that arrangement was come to the Bill has been radically altered by the Government, or by another place. The immense rayon industry has been brought in, and Lord Barnby wants to bring in the wool industry in a kind of indirect manner. Therefore the original basis of the bargain has been somewhat altered.
I do not want to put too much weight on that second reason, but I must defend the leaders of the great textile unions, who were admittedly in such a difficult position, and had to take an immense responsibility. They had to think of the interests of many thousands of workmen and workwomen, and were naturally exercised about the distress in the Lancashire textile districts and elsewhere. They therefore agreed to this small representation. Since then my friends and my Party have heard the case for larger representation, and we are convinced that a good case can be made out. These Amendments do not affect the principle of the Bill. They give a little more representation to the workpeople—
394
five out of seventeen instead of three out of fifteen, and that is not a large proportion to represent workers who constitute something like half a million in the industry.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 6, leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I trust the Government will accept this Amendment. The responsibility, as my noble friend says, of a single member representing the whole of the vast number of operatives engaged in the weaving industry, and another single member representing those engaged in the spinning industry, is too heavy, and those bodies would seem to be entitled to two representatives on a Board of this character. Several years ago, when the relations between capital and labour were unfortunately more strained than they are in these days, there was a strong movement to bring about a new spirit in industry, and to enable the working classes to feel that they were not merely hands employed by some indivdual for his profit, but that they really should have the status of partners in the industry, whose share in its prosperity was fully recognised, and who should be given some degree of responsibility for participating in any measures or activities affecting the industry as a whole. This is such a case, where an industry is being largely remodelled under the auspices of the State, and in those circumstances workers in the industry ought to play a full part in the organisation which is to be set up for the purpose in view. For those reasons I would venture to give my support to the proposal of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEMORE: I am sure it is very difficult for me to resist the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord opposite, and of the noble Viscount, but I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, and for reasons which I will give as shortly as possible. I will not, as the noble Lord opposite thought I was going to do, go into a long dissertation on the long conferences which took place on the Bill, although such did take place, but the present constitution of the Board is in accordance with proposals put forward by the Joint Committee of the Cotton trade organisations. As the Board is at present constituted, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government there appears to be adequate representation of the various

395
interests. In their opinion additional representation for one section would be certain to give rise to requests for similar extensions to others, and in the result the Board, already very large—I think it consists of fifteen members—would become unwieldy. The present representation for operatives will enable them, we think, to voice adequately the Labour opinion on any problems that arise, and that is all that is necessary, and all that is possible, on a Board of this nature, where of necessity any particular interest must be in a minority with regard to all the others combined. In the circumstances I am afraid I must resist the noble Lord's Amendment. I trust he will see the reasons for my reply and will not press the Amendment.
LORD SNELL: We do not see the reasons at all, or if we do we see them rather remotely. The reply of the noble Lord is really very disappointing. Supposing this Amendment were accepted the representatives of labour would still be less than one-third. Labour in a great industry like the cotton industry is not a section. Labour is half, at least, of the whole enterprise, and that, if I may be permitted to say so, the more important half. Again, the men who represent the operatives in the cotton industry are men of long service, of very great capacity, with great technical knowledge, and their work on the Board would not be to divide the Board but to help the Board to arrive at decisions which would be good for the industry as a whole. The narrow view of the Government, I repeat, is very disappointing, especially on a matter of this kind.
LORD STRABOLGI: In spite of what my noble friend has said I think we have agreed that we will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, unless the noble Viscount below the gangway would care for it. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I hope those remarks about the size of a body of fifteen reached the noble Lords who are members of the Cabinet, and may I particularly appeal to one of them present, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman? He has a great deal of knowledge of that admirable body the Joint Maritime Board, which has done so much for raising the status of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, in collaboration with the
396
shipowners. On the joint Maritime Board the officers, the engineers, the seamen, firemen and stewards have almost half the representation on the Board, and they get on very well. However, we do not want to trouble your Lordships on this matter. Perhaps later on it may be possible by mutual agreement to arrange that the Board can be increased. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.12 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out all words after "three" and insert:
"shall be appointed as being independent persons, of whom two shall be persons appearing to the Board of Trade to have special knowledge of the industry.
One of the three persons so appointed shall be designated by the Board of Trade as chairman of the Board."
The noble Lord said: In the Bill it is required that all three independent members are to have a special knowledge of the cotton industry. During consideration in another place the functions of the three independent members have been considerably widened, and they will now have a great deal of administrative and semi-judicial work to do. It is highly desirable that among the independent members there should be some special knowledge of the cotton industry. In view of the important functions they will have to perform, however, it may well be desirable that the field of choice in the selection of these members should not be limited to the cotton industry. Accordingly, the Amendment proposes to make it possible, in appointing one of the independent members, to look outside the field of persons who have a special knowledge of the industry.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 7, leave out from ("three") to end of line 11 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: This raises some question of principle, but I only rise to ask a question, and I hope that what I say will reach the ears of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the appointment of a person who need not have any knowledge of the textile industry does not mean that we are going to have more lawyers on this Board. I have had to resist the tendency to make a sort of closed field for lawyers

397
for this kind of appointment, and I hope that that is not the intention here. I am sure the whole of the cotton industry would prefer anyone to another lawyer on their Board.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I am not authorised to say that the representative will not be a lawyer. I take it that if a lawyer were the most suitable person he would be appointed, but I should think it most likely, even probable, that he will not be. Further than that I cannot say.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved, after paragraph 7, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(8) The Board of Trade may also, until such time as an Act for the reorganisation of the wool textile industry has been brought into force, appoint as attachés to the Cotton Industry Board three persons who appear to the Board of Trade to be representative of the said industry. Provided always that the appointments of the said persons shall be subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may prescribe, including conditions that they may be present at any meeting of the Board but shall have no voting rights, and shall receive no payment."
The noble Lord said: In using this means of putting this suggestion before the Government I speak entirely for myself, and not as representing any trade federation. I have, however, taken steps to see that the proposal which I make is brought to the attention of the Central Employers' Federation of the industry, and that the President of the Board of Trade is informed that it is not put forward in any way authoritatively as representing the industry. I repeat, I put it forward purely as a personal proposal. I do so because I have been associated with the textile industry all my business life, and I was formerly Chairman of the Central Employers' Federation to which I have just referred. I have done it also because I have been familiar with the whole textile industry in various Continental countries, and more particularly in the United States. I have also made a study of the jute industry in this country, and more particularly in India, and of the linen industry in the North of Ireland.
As a result of all those examinations, I have been reinforced in my view that the requirements of the moment call for some
398
action which the Government have taken in introducing this Bill. I am fully conscious that the matter has been one of great controversy among those interested in the industry. We have this very singular and perplexing position, that leaders of great standing and experience in the cotton textile industry take, with equal vehemence, opposing sides. For instance, you have Mr. Herbert Lee, of the Fine Cotton Spinners, on the one hand strongly urging what the Bill purports to do, and you have that brilliant industrial leader, Sir Kenneth Lee, taking, with equal insistence, an opposite view. It must be very confusing to the rank and file to find such divergence among those whom habit has accustomed them to regard as leaders. I remember that when I was President of the Federation of British Industries, it was frequently explained to me that this or that progressive proposal would be strongly resisted by Lancashire and the cotton industry. At that time they had been the oracles of leadership in industrial thought in England, but that was before their position of leadership was eclipsed. That situation in Lancashire, however, brought about action from outside the industry. Weakness and discord from within produced this Bill from without, and it is for the purpose of avoiding confusion in the wool textile industry that I urge that time should be taken by the forelock, and the industry should be encouraged to put itself in the limelight of progress.
I am, however, resolutely against interference from without, or State control. The drift of the day is away from extreme individualism towards collective effort, but I want that movement to come from within. In recent times, in step with the change which is taking place throughout the world, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for Overseas Trade have both repeatedly urged the country, and have gone down to the different industrial areas in the provinces and urged in more detail, that steps should be taken within different industries to prepare themselves for dealing with an entirely new set of conditions, which partly arise from within the country itself and are partly forced upon us from without. The Bill which your Lordships are considering has been described by The Times as a Bill which gives an instrument of self-help to the industry. The

399
Manchester Guardian, that very conservative organ, described it as a highly democratic production.
Turning to the wool textile industry, the grounds on which I urge the Government to consider this proposal are the progressive decline in the number of operatives employed in the industry, the regrettable record of unemployment in the industry, and the undeniably low operating ratio of the machinery for the past years. Incidentally I would mention that the position has been impressively changed in recent months by the lavish expenditure of the Government in buying its products, and therefore any situation that exists is temporarily masked. I would also add, as grounds for consideration, the evidence given by Sir Harry Shackleton before a tribunal set up to consider the general state of the industry in connection with an application for wage advances, in which he recorded a very discouraging figure as the rate of return on capital employed in the industry. I would also instance the statement of Sir George Douglas, Chairman of the Bradford Dyers Association, who admits what has been the position of his own great company whose name is familiar to your Lordships, one of the great industrial concerns in this country; and he is a man who speaks with full knowledge and experience of the industry.
Personally, I am very indignant at the requirements imposed on the industry for excessive expenditure in connection with the interpretation of the Factory Acts and more recently the Civil Defence Act. I believe that more complete organisation in all sections of the industry would have permitted more authoritative and effective influence on this or any other proposal coming from the Government, with a view to emphasizing its requirements to keep in step with the national movement of these days.
I would except the combing industry, the application to which of a scheme based on the shipbuilding scheme has put in a much healthier situation, but even in that section, profits are nothing but modest. In the older industries, with their extremely individualistic conditions, one must admit prosperity has been much less than in the case of the newer ones with a different structure. Therefore it seems a national question whether the
400
structure does not require reorientation, and that is the ground of the proposals which I have made to the Government. The world is changing fast. The Ministry of Supply Act, which your Lordships passed recently, confers revolutionary powers, and that in itself is evidence of an entire change in the national position.
My aim in this suggestion is to prepare for resistance to any possible Governmental control or interference, and to urge that there should be an entire policy of self-help within the industry. For that reason it would seem that the experience of observers or attachés such as I have suggested, would be helpful—indeed is essential—to ensure profits from the industry and good conditions for the workers, which it is the particular responsibility of Parliament to protect. I suspect in advance that it will be explained by the Government spokesman that to accept this Amendment with regard to the wool textile industry would be difficult unless similar privileges were extended to the jute industry, the linen industry, and so forth. It may be that that difficulty is insuperable. Nevertheless at this moment, when your Lordships are considering a Bill dealing with the cotton industry, a proposal for a more conscious survey of the position of the textile industries of the country other than that which falls under this Bill seems appropriate, and I hope may receive a sympathetic reply from the Government. In conclusion I would remind your Lordships that in my Amendment I have suggested that any action the Board of Trade should take is permissive and not mandatory. It is because of the fact that until recent years the textile trades of this country made such a very substantial contribution to the total exports of this country that, when a Bill which is considered revolutionary in its importance to the cotton industry is being considered, I suggest your Lordships should be prepared to consider whether the national interests do not call for the Board of Trade to consider what steps, if any, should be taken with regard to other branches of the textile industry.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 22, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Barnby.)
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment was good enough to communicate with me and ask

401
for my support. I appreciate the honour, but I must explain to him that we have grave objections to the principles of the Cotton Bill now before your Lordships. As the noble Lord's proposal is to make it easier to apply the same principles to the wool industry, I regret that we cannot possibly support him. The wool industry is comparatively prosperous. The noble Lord represented the City of Bradford with great distinction in another place. I have heard the City of Bradford referred to as "The City of the Golden Fleece." They did very well at a certain critical period. In the same way, I have heard Cardiff described as "The City of the Dreadful Knights."
LORD BARNBY: The wool textile industry is always ready to respond to whatever national requirements may demand.
LORD STRABOLGI: At any rate they are very prosperous, and I have not heard of a demand from them such as we have had from the cotton industry. I do not think my friends who represent the workers in the wool industry wish to have a Bill brought in for them, and therefore I am sorry we cannot support this Amendment.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My noble friend has raised an important Amendment, but I am sorry that, for reasons I shall give, the Government cannot accept it. First of all, the Government have no reason to think that the wool textile industry would desire that three persons from their industry should be attached to the Cotton Industry Board in the way proposed by my noble friend. At all events, no representations on the subject have reached them. The Government are aware that certain sections of the wool textile industry, and in particular the section dealing with worsted spinning, have for some time past been considering plans for reorganisation and they entirely agree that the wool textile industry should keep under review the schemes of reorganisation developed with the machinery provided for the cotton industry by the Bill, with a view to considering in the light of the circumstances of the wool textile industry whether, and if so, to what extent, similar powers could usefully be sought at some later date by the wool textile industry. So far the Government are in agreement with my noble
402
friend, but they cannot agree with him regarding his proposal that the wool textile industry should be enabled to keep the matter under review by appointing representatives on the Cotton Industry Board, even though by the terms of his Amendment he would limit the proposal by the condition that such members should have no voting rights and should receive no remuneration.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the experiment in reorganisation which is being embodied in the Bill is a matter of the greatest interest to a number of industries. There is in the lace and embroidery industry, for example, a feeling that similar measures are required for that industry. Interest is by no means limited to the textile industries, but the attitude of other industries seems to be rather like that of the wool textile industry—namely, that they have at present an open mind on the question and would like to see how the cotton trade schemes work out in practice before committing themselves to a corresponding line of action. But these other industries—and there are a good many of them—would have the right to claim, and no doubt would claim, any special facilities for observing the progress of reorganisation in the cotton industry that may be granted to the wool textile industry. If the Amendment were passed it would be very difficult to revise a scheme and a very large addition to the membership of the Cotton Industry Board would be necessary. Such an extension of the membership of the Cotton Industry Board would be wholly impracticable. Many of the matters that would be discussed by the Cotton Industry Board concern questions of the policy to be adopted by the cotton industry, they would be entirely confidential and might be quite unsuited to discussion in the presence of representatives of a large number of other industries. Indeed, it should be borne in mind that on some of these questions, the Cotton Industry Board may subsequently be engaging in negotiations with those other industries. In the opinion of the Government the membership of the Cotton Industry Board must be confined to persons directly concerned with the industry.
I should like to point out to my noble friend that there is no possibility of the woollen industry or any other industry being unable to obtain such information as is necessary to them as to what the

403
Cotton Industry Board is doing. Anyone who has read this Bill will be under no misapprehension as to the publicity that will attach to sectional schemes proposed under it. Reports on the schemes by the Cotton Industry Board and the Cotton Industry Advisory Committee will be presented to Parliament and Parliament itself will no doubt on occasion debate the schemes. Moreover, the Cotton Industry Board will under Clause 32 make a report each year on the discharge of its functions which will be presented to Parliament. The Government are fully satisfied that the wool textile industry will have adequate information about the operations of the Board and I regret that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: I appreciate the sympathetic way in which the noble Lord has explained the difficulties which operate against the Government accepting my proposals. I shall read with care the statement which he has been good enough to make. I remember that he clearly assured me that there would be every opportunity for the wool textile industry to have the fullest information as to the experiences of its sister industry under this Bill. This is the first attempt at constructive and progressive action as the outcome of much controversy within the industry, and I would like to say that I was pleased to hear the assurance which the noble Lord gives that all the examination which is necessary will be undertaken by the Board. I would also like to say that I feel that these reassurances will have an effect upon those of my colleagues in the industry who would doubt the wisdom of any collective examination of the industry. With regard to what was said by my noble friend who has spoken for the Labour Party, I would say that it will be consoling to them to be told that far from the suggestion being hazardous from the point of view of Governmental control it would be insufficiently progressive. I appreciate what was said quite frankly by my noble friend as to what the situation is, and I am glad to think that he is personally sympathetic to anything which will safeguard the interests of the workers in the wool textile industry. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.34 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment on the Paper is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 3, after the second ("or") insert ("for").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next two Amendments also are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 59, line 7, after ("Board") insert ("and any members of a committee of the Board who are not members of the Board")
Page 59, line 22, after ("Council") insert ("the Rayon Committee").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
  LIMITATIONS ON, AND SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS FROM, DETERMINATION OF NORMAL MINIMUM PRICE OR CHARGE UNDER A PRICE SCHEME.

    PART I.
    Maximum Limit of Normal Minimum Price or Charge.
    3. In relation to each of the undertakings so selected, the Cotton Industry Board shall ascertain the sum equal to the aggregate of the following amounts, that is to say—

    (a) the cost to the person carrying on that undertaking of manufacturing the relevant quantity of the relevant product or subjecting the relevant quantity of that product to the relevant process;

    (b) such amount as may, in relation to plant of the type used for the purposes of that undertaking in manufacturing the relevant product or subjecting it to the relevant process, be specified in the scheme as the amount allowable for depreciation of plant by reason of the manufacture of the relevant quantity of the relevant product or the subjection of the relevant quantity of that product to the relevant process;

    and the average of the sums ascertained under this paragraph shall be the maximum limit.
    4. The amount computed in respect of cost in relation to any undertaking under subparagraph (a) of the last preceding paragraph shall be computed—

    (a) by reference to the operation of the undertaking over such past period as the Cotton Industry Board think proper; and

    (b) on the assumption that the undertaking was carried on on every day of the week except holidays, for the number of hours customary in the section of the industry to which the scheme relates.

    PART II.
    Authorisation of Price or Charge less than Normal Minimum Price or Charge.
    4. The amount computed in respect of cost in relation to any person under sub-paragraph (a) of the last preceding paragraph shall be computed—

    (a) by reference to the operation of his undertaking over such past period as the Cotton Industry Board think proper; and

    (b) (if the remuneration of operatives employed for the purposes of that undertaking in that period was paid at rates less than those customary in the section of the industry to which the scheme relates) on the assumption that the said remuneration was paid at the rates customary in that section of the industry.

    LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in paragraph 3 (b) in Part I, after "plant," to insert "and buildings." The noble Lord said: Part I of the Third Schedule prescribes the way in which the maximum limit to the normal minimum price or charge is to be determined, and Part II prescribes the method of determining the margin below the normal minimum price or charge at which the exceptionally efficient producer can sell or process his goods. In both cases the determination includes an amount for depreciation of plant. The industry have pointed out that such provision is not wide enough, as buildings as well as plant may depreciate in value and two Amendments lower down on the Paper accordingly enable an allowance to be made for both depreciation of buildings and plant, the amount to be specified in the scheme.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 61, line 29, after ("plant") insert ("and buildings").—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, at the end of paragraph 4 in Part I, to insert:
    "and shall include a sum in respect of the cost to the person carrying on the under-taking—

    (i) of finding persons with whom to make contracts for the sale of the relevant product or the subjection of that product to the relevant process, and

    (ii) of performing such contracts as aforesaid."

    The noble Lord said: As at present drafted paragraph 3 (a) of Part I of the Third Schedule provides that in determining the limit to be set on the normal minimum prices or charges the Cotton Industry Board are required to take
    406
    account of the cost of manufacturing or the cost of processing the product. These words are not wide enough to include incidental expenses such as advertising, salaries of salesmen, cost of packing and so on, although clearly these have to be incurred. The first Amendment makes it clear that such costs are to be taken into consideration by the Cotton Industry Board in determining the limit to be set on the normal minimum prices or charges. There is a second Amendment which makes this clear in respect of the determination of the costs of the exceptionally efficient producer under paragraph 3 (a) of Part II of the Third Schedule. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 62, line 10, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next three Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 62, line 14, after ("whenever") insert ("they give their consent to")
    Page 62, line 17, leave out ("takes effect")
    Page 62, line 18, leave out ("affected") and insert ("registered under the scheme").—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have already explained the next Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 62, line 42, after ("plant") insert ("and buildings").—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    4.38 p.m.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 in Part II and insert:
    "(b) (if the remuneration of operatives employed for the purposes of that undertaking in that period was less than that which might reasonably be expected to be normally payable in the section of the industry to which the scheme relates, in the circumstances in which his undertaking was carried on during that period) on the assumption that the said remuneration was that which might reasonably be expected to be so payable."
    The noble Lord said: Part II of the Third Schedule provides that a person whose costs are lower than the average of the selected group of efficient firms who have set the standard for determining the normal

    407
    minimum price, is to be permitted by the Cotton Industry Board to sell his goods at a price below the normal minimum price by the amount of the difference in costs. It is obviously undesirable that this advantage should apply to a person whose costs are lower merely by reason of the fact that he is paying lower wages than the standard for the section. Paragraph 4 (b), to which this Amendment relates, provides that if the remuneration of the operatives employed by a person claiming this advantage is paid at rates less than those customary in the section his costs are to be computed on the assumption that he is paying at the customary rates.
    Paragraph 4 (b), however, in its present form may not meet all the circumstances in which this question is likely to arise. What it is desired to achieve is that the remuneration paid by the efficient should not be less than that paid by a good employer to employees working in the same section of the trade. This does not so much involve comparison of actual piece rates or weekly rates as ascertaining whether the employee is receiving not less than the wages that other employees in the same section obtain in similar circumstances for similar work. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Cotton Industry Board, in arriving at their decision, to review the matter from this general aspect and to have regard to all the relevant circumstances.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 63, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have already explained the next Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 63, line 12, at end insert ("and shall include a sum in respect of the cost to the said person—

    (i) of finding persons with whom to make contracts for the sale of the relevant product or the subjection of that product to the relevant process, and

    (ii) of performing such contracts as aforesaid").—(Lord Templemore.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next five Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 63, line 18, after ("unchanged") insert ("and, if it is changed, during the appropriate period thereafter")
    Page 63, line 26, at end insert—
    ("In this paragraph the expression 'the appropriate period' means, in relation to any change in the normal minimum price or charge, the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the change is made or, if within that period the person concerned applies under paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule for a determination of the special allowance for cost and depreciation in relation to the new normal minimum price or charge, the period beginning with the said day and ending with the day on which the last-mentioned determination is made.")
    Page 63, line 43, leave out ("be varied") and insert ("have effect")
    Page 63, line 47, leave out from ("period") to end of line 3 on page 64, and insert ("of seven days beginning with the day on which the determination is made")
    Page 64, line 6, leave out ("taken effect") and insert ("been made").—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.
    Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Fourth Schedule agreed to.
    Fifth Schedule [Maximum amounts of registration fees payable to Cotton Industry Board]:
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: Both the Amendments to this Schedule are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 69, line 22, leave out ("at") and insert ("on")
    Page 69, line 23, leave out ("on the said").—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.
    Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Sixth Schedule agreed to.
    Seventh Schedule [Provisions for Exchequer assistance to boards administering redundancy schemes]:
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: The whole of the Amendments on this Schedule are verbal and drafting. I beg to move.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 71, line 28, leave out ("employees") and insert ("persons")
    Page 71, line 29, leave out from ("employment") to the end of line 30.
    Page 72, line 6, leave out from ("exercisable") to ("it") in line 8.
    Page 76, line 44, leave out ("employees") and insert ("persons")
    Page 76, line 45, leave out ("by reason of the exercise of those powers")

    409
    Page 77, line 5, leave out ("with") and insert ("immediately before")
    Page 77, line 6, have out ("ends") and insert ("begins").—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Amendments agreed to.
    Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

MINING INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.43 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, daring the time I have represented His Majesty's Government on agricultural questions in your Lordships' House it has fallen to my lot to introduce fourteen Bills, three of which have referred to fishery matters. These measures have gone far to effect a radical change in the outlook and method of the farming community, and as your Lordships are aware, some of them have been not only far-reaching in effect but extremely complicated in character. The Agricultural Development Bill which is before the House to-day, embraces three of the more fundamental and staple commodities of the farm—namely, oats, barley and sheep, as well as other important provisions, and I am sorry to say that parts of the Bill are no less difficult and abstruse than some of its predecessors which have gone before.
Those who are not initiated in the intricacies of agricultural legislation might well wonder why different kinds of machinery should be necessary for dealing with the various commodities. Here we are dealing with three commodities, two of which have defied all previous efforts to devise practicable schemes of assistance—a fact which goes to show, I think, the ingenuity necessary in the construction of such schemes. But in spite of the diversity of the machinery which is found necessary there is a single principle running through the provisions of the
410
Bill—namely, that of price insurance, which means a scheme to prevent a producer being involved in losses on any of his staple commodities such as would upset the balance of his enterprise and cause a further decline in fertility. I need hardly say that it is not a correct interpretation of price insurance to say that it means guaranteeing profitable prices for all farm produce. The subsidies in the Bill are not intended to create a profit, but nevertheless the Government hope that the effect of the whole policy, including the proper regulation of imports, efficiency measures, cheap fertilisers and so on will bring the industry into a position where it will make a profit.
I am very sorry that this important Bill—perhaps the most important single measure that has come before your Lordships' House for many years—has reached this House so late in the Session, and that only a short time is available for the consideration of its details. For my part I would have liked to have more opportunity of drawing on the large fund of expert opinion that exists in your Lordships' House, but as the Leader of the House has already explained, the business of Parliament has been rather badly dislocated because time has had to be found for a number of emergency measures in addition to the ordinary Government programme. So I shall forgo the opportunity which this Bill might have afforded of reviewing generally the results of the Government's agricultural policy and the present state of farming, and I will confine myself to a short and, I hope, understandable explanation of the main provisions of the Bill.
Part I of the Bill deals with oats, and provides for an increased scale of assistance to oat growers above that which was provided under the Agriculture Act of 1937. Under the Agriculture Act there is an Exchequer subsidy based on the difference between the average market price and the standard price of 8s. per cwt. Those farmers who drew wheat deficiency payments were debarred from assistance. The subsidy was based on the estimated proportion of the crop which is sold off the farm, which is 6 cwts. per acre out of an average yield of 16 cwts. We are now departing from that principle in the case of the grower who is dependent on oats as his main or sole cereal crop. Oat growers who do not grow wheat or who do not claim wheat

411
deficiency payments—they will be enabled to choose—will be eligible to receive subsidy on the basis of 14 cwts. per acre. The maximum payment that can be given under this higher rate of subsidy will be £2 6s. 8d. per acre. The disability of wheat growers is removed, but growers of oats who also claim wheat deficiency payments will be eligible to receive subsidy on 6 cwts. per acre of their crop, with a maximum of £1 per acre—the same rate of subsidy as that which was previously given only to oat growers who did not claim wheat deficiency payment. The Ministers are given power to review and vary by Order the standard price of 8s. if there is any material change in the situation, subject to the consent of the Treasury and the affirmative approval of Parliament. As is well known, the decline in the number of horses materially affects the demand for oats, and we must therefore guard against unduly encouraging barley production. If the total acreage for which applications for subsidy are made exceeds 2,500,000 acres, the amount of subsidy will be reduced proportionately.
This Part of the Bill applies retrospectively to the 1938 oats crop, and as barley is to be treated in the future in a rather different way from oats, and it would be impossible to apply any future scheme to last year's crop of barley, it is provided that subsidy will be paid on barley grown in 1938 at the same rate as if it were oats. The payments for last year's crop have worked out at 31s. 6d. per acre at the higher rate and 13s. 6d. per acre at the lower rate. This represents a substantial improvement on the rates of payment which were provided under the Agriculture Act, 1937. Clause 4 deals with the important question of negligent cultivation, which is obviously a subject of special concern to a number of your Lordships. It will be seen that the provisions made in the Bill are much wider than the provisions made in the Agriculture Act. Not only is there power for the Minister to withhold or reduce the subsidy on evidence of negligence, but the Minister can also take action if the land has been used in such a way as is likely to impair its fertility, including, for example, overcropping with white straw crops. In England and Wales the Ministry's crop reporters are to inspect a proportion of the farms in respect of
412
which applications are received for subsidy for oats or barley. These crop reporters are part-time officers, some 300 in number, and they have, by and large, a good and intimate knowledge of local agricultural conditions. The whole-time officers of the Department will also assist in this work of inspection and the staff has been increased and strengthened for this purpose. In Scotland the necessary inspections will be carried out by whole-time officers of the Department of Agriculture.
Now I turn to Part II of the Bill, which deals with barley—Clauses 11 to 20. Barley cannot be treated in the same way as oats, owing to the two distinct uses to which the crop is put. Barley has proved a complex problem for successive Governments over the past twenty years, and it is not surprising that in the time available it has not been possible to provide a permanent scheme to be agreed with by all the interests concerned. This Part of the Bill therefore gives the Ministers power to bring before Parliament barley schemes which may be one of two kinds, either what I shall call a "minimum price scheme," or alternatively a "levy subsidy scheme." Both the farmers and the brewers and distillers have expressed a preference for a minimum price scheme, in spite of the fact that it involves some measure of restriction on the operations of individual firms. If the Bill becomes law it is intended to continue our efforts to devise a satisfactory long-term scheme based on this principle—minimum price, minimum quantity. In this type of scheme it would be compulsory for users of malting barley to pay not less than a stated minimum price (or average minimum price) for their purchases of homegrown barley, and to use not less than a stated minimum quantity of barley in relation to the total materials used in the manufacture of the beer, whisky, or whatever the product might be. Farmers who sell barley for malting would under this scheme receive no additional assistance, but those whose barley is used for feeding purposes would receive an acreage subsidy direct from the Exchequer sufficient to make the average price of feeding barley up to 8s. per cwt., subject to a maximum payment of £2 13s. 4d. per acre.
Under a levy subsidy scheme, on the other hand, users of barley for malting

413
would have freedom as regards their purchases of barley, but they would be required to pay a levy sufficient to make up the average price of barley sold for malting up to a prescribed standard price. Their liability would be fixed in relation to a reasonable aggregate quantity of home-grown barley which should be used for malting purposes. This reasonable aggregate quantity of malting barley is referred to in the Bill under Clause 19, subsection (4), as the "industrial quota." The proceeds of the levy would be paid into a levy subsidy fund, an Exchequer contribution would be added and the whole fund would then be distributed amongst growers of barley at a flat rate per acre. The Exchequer contribution would be of an amount sufficient to make up any deficiency in the price of barley grown for feeding purposes below a standard price of 8s. per cwt.
Although considerable progress has been made with a long-term scheme on the minimum price basis, there is insufficient time to bring such a scheme into operation before the beginning of the barley season next month. It is therefore provided in Clause 20 of the Bill that a special simplified scheme of the levy subsidy type shall be brought into operation for the 1939 crop only. This scheme must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into operation, and therefore, as soon as this Bill has received the Royal Assent, the scheme will be laid before Parliament for consideration. But in view of the shortness of time before the Summer Recess, and to meet the convenience of the House, we propose to publish the draft scheme in advance in a few days' time, as a White Paper. I hope that members of your Lordships' House will have an opportunity of studying that scheme before this Bill is on the Statute Book, so as to have greater time in which to weigh its merits. Before leaving the subject of barley I should mention that there is a ceiling level of 18,000,000 cwt. above which the full rate of Exchequer assistance will not be given. Provision is also made for setting up a Barley Advisory Committee representing growers, merchants and uses of barley, with an independent Chairman, to advise the Ministers on the operation of whatever scheme is introduced.
The sheep proposals in the Bill, dealt with in Part III and the Second Schedule,
414
are not as formidable as they may appear at first sight. A subsidy scheme for fat sheep is to be prepared by the Livestock Commission, but the Bill specifies certain conditions which the scheme must fulfil. In the first place the Bill lays down a basic annual price of 10d. per lb. of estimated dressed carcase weight. Monthly standard prices based on this annual figure of 10d. will be fixed by Order so as to correspond with seasonal variations, and it is these monthly standard prices which will be used in calculating subsidy. Unlike cattle, sheep are not weighed when sold in the livestock markets and it will, therefore, be necessary to fix standard weights for different classes of sheep. The amount of subsidy received by the producer on any particular sheep will be arrived at by multiplying the appropriate standard weight by the difference between the average market price in that particular month and the monthly standard price.
I realise that an exceedingly difficult arithmetical calculation would follow, and therefore I may be permitted to give an example which will indicate the line and machinery to be adopted under this Bill, but no importance need be attached to the actual figures quoted. If in a given month, say the month of April, the monthly standard price is 10½d. and the market price is 9½d., there is a difference of one penny. If the class of sheep sold come within the category under the standard weight proposals of 48 lbs., then it is 48 multiplied by 1, which gives 4s. to be paid per sheep. That is, as I say, a rough indication of the way in which the sheep proposals will work, and no undue importance should be attached to the special figures which I have used.
The basic standard price of 10d. per lb. is to be reduced when the sheep population of the United Kingdom in any year exceeds 27,000,000, when it will fall by one-eighth of a penny for every complete quarter of a million up to 28,000,000, and by ½d. for every quarter of a million thereafter. This standard population of 27,000,000 is somewhat higher than the figure in June, 1938, and it has only been slightly exceeded in one year since the War and that was in 1932. It is also true to say that this figure of population has only been exceeded four times in the last forty years.

415
It is the intention of the Government to ensure producers against unduly low price levels, and not to pay subsidy on the basis of standard prices which are permanently above market prices. Therefore if market prices are below the standard prices for two years in succession, that would indicate that the figure of 27,000,000 was probably too high. It is provided that in this case it shall be reduced to 26,000,000, and thereafter by a further million for each two successive years that the average market price falls below the standard price. But if the low prices are due to pressure of imported supplies, or accidental causes, Ministers have power to suspend in any year the operation of this automatic reduction of the basic sheep population. Similarly, there is provision for restoration of the original figure of 27,000,000, if subsequently market prices are above the standard price. It will also be possible, if there is a material change in conditions, for the provisions in the Bill relating to basic average price of 10d. and the standard population of 27,000,000 to be varied by Orders made by Ministers, after consultation with the Livestock Commission, with the consent of the Treasury and the affirmative approval of Parliament.
The remainder of the Bill is concerned for the most part with measures to increase our preparedness to expand food production in the event of emergency. Part IV contains the legislation necessary to implement the proposals announced on May 3 last for a ploughing-up campaign. The Bill authorises Ministers to give grants of £1 per half-acre, with a minimum of two acres, towards the cost of ploughing up, between the dates of May 4 and October 31, 1939, land which has been under grass for not less than seven years, and bringing such land into a condition capable, if the need should arise, of growing satisfactory arable crops in 1940. Under these provisions the Agricultural Departments have already received notifications of intention to plough up about 200,000 acres which, I think the House will agree, is a very encouraging response to our original objective of 250,000 acres.
Clause 31 deals with the reserves of agricultural machinery. The Minister is
416
given power to acquire and store tractors and other agricultural machinery for use in the event of war. These tractors cannot be used in the ploughing-up scheme that is in operation for this year. The Minister is given power to erect buildings and arrange himself for the storage of the machinery, but the preferable arrangement which it is proposed to adopt is to get the agents of the various manufacturers to take into stock an increased number of tractors, and keep them in good order, in return for a small payment. The tractors belonging to the Government stock would then be turned over in the ordinary course of trade to prevent deterioration.
The remaining provisions of importance which I should mention are those relating to agricultural credit in Clause 32. These powers do not represent any new departure in agricultural credit policy, but it is intended to enable the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which is the principal organ of long-term agricultural credit in England and Wales, to overcome certain difficulties which have hampered its activities in recent years. Owing to the fall in rates of interest, the Corporation has found itself unable to lend money at corresponding rates, without incurring losses. This Bill provides for Exchequer assistance by way of grant or loan, up to £,60,000 a year for twenty years. Its sole purpose is to cover any losses that may occur during that period, so that the Corporation will again be in a position to fulfil the function for which it is designed, which was to lend money at commercial rates to those who found it necessary to apply for credit for agricultural enterprises.
As I promised, I have kept to the actual provisions of the Bill. But I hope your Lordships will not lose sight of the main objective of our agricultural policy. We are concerned not only with the returns of producers of oats, barley and sheep, but with the rehabilitation of the industry as a whole. We want to put new heart in the producers, attract lost capital back to the industry, and put the farmers in a position to give their workers better wages, and thus go far to redress the balance between agriculture and country life on the one hand, and trade and industry on the other. That is an aim on which I believe the House would be unanimously agreed, and therefore I commend

417
the present Bill to your Lordships' sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
5.12 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree that the noble Earl has commended his fifteenth Agricultural Bill to your Lordships' House with his accustomed clarity and charm. He described this Bill as one of the most important agricultural measures that have been brought before your Lordships for many years. It does not escape my attention anyhow that it is introduced in the last two weeks of the Session, and we are expected to deliberate upon it and consider it in full detail to-day and on Wednesday afternoon. I am sure this House has often felt that it had a real grievance against the Government of the day, but this is almost an affront to it as a deliberative assembly, because there are many members of this House, as we all know—and see here, too, to-day—who have very exceptional knowledge of this subject. Although I know it is completely futile for one in my position, representing a very small Party, to enter any protest, nevertheless I do. I think it is most unfair that the House should be expected to criticise a Bill of this kind in this summary fashion. I know that protest will not make any difference, but it is a justifiable protest.
I gather from the newspapers that the noble Earl will perhaps not be here to present to us another fifteen Bills. I am sure we all regret it—though not the fifteen. The fact that this is the fifteenth Bill introduced into your Lordships' House does not impress me. It represents a very big piece in a large collection of bits and pieces which the Government have presented during the last few years. But we were told that somewhere or other enshrined in the Government's policy is the principle of price insurance. I have been looking anxiously for a good many months for an explanation of that expression, and I take it that we have got something of it in this Bill. But I would remind your Lordships that last week we had before us a Bill dealing with, I think, the third major agricultural industry—namely, the production of eggs, chickens and so on, of a total value of some £25,000,000 a
418
year—and there was not a word in that Bill, from start to finish, which led us to suppose that the producer was going to get an assured price by any species of machinery. But I am very glad that we have a good portion of it at all events in this Bill.
I remember that in 1931 some of us were engaged, after consultation with the representatives of the brewing and other interests, in trying to devise a scheme for a stabilised price for malting barley. We got quite a long way, and I am quite sure, if it had been the subject of sustained attention, it would not have required eight years to bring that to fruition. We were then very near agreement. I think the principle of a reliable price for malting barley is thoroughly sound. Just as the producer of a good commodity is entitled to be properly paid, so the producers of agricultural commodities are. But I draw your Lordships' attention to this fact, that notwithstanding these eight years of deliberation, we are still not told in this Bill how it is going to be done. There are powers to do it, and on the whole I think the way they are outlined is both ingenious and fair, but still we are not told what is going to be proposed. I suppose we shall gather the information from the White Paper which is to be issued, perhaps when we have gone for our holidays.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: No, before then. In a day or two.
LORD ADDISON: Then we shall have a chance of studying it at the week-end when we have parted with the Bill. That seems to me to add another grievance, if we are looking for grievances, which I am not. At all events, we shall have an opportunity of looking at it on the Sabbath, when perhaps this Bill will have been read a third time. Still, for my part I welcome the principle of a sound, reliable price for good quality malting barley. We ought to have had it years since, and if our Party had been in power we should have had it. It would not have taken me eight years to carry out the principle which we were considering in 1931. But I will not enter into the more detailed arithmetic which the noble Earl quite fairly summarised—I think, very ingeniously summarised. I think the principle that a receiver of the wheat subsidy should not be entitled to receive this help which was provided in

419
respect of his other cereal crops, always was absurd, and I am glad that the Government have abandoned it. I should not have regarded the abandonment of what to us has always been an unjustifiable principle, particularly with regard to Scotland, as a justification for another Bill. May I end that point by asking the noble Earl a question? I see in looking at the First Schedule, on page 35, that there are three countries to which this is to apply—England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I would ask whether Wales for that purpose is included in England.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Yes.
LORD ADDISON: I am surprised that our Welsh friends at the other end of the passage have not had something to say about that. It is true that they do not produce many oats, but I think they should at least have been mentioned. Now I want to say a little about the ploughing programme. This is designed as portion of the policy of rehabilitation (to use the noble Earl's word) of agriculture. So far, at £2 an acre, we have a promise of 200,000 acres being ploughed up. I regard that as woefully and discreditably insufficient. Since the War I should think about 5,000,000 acres have reverted to grass, rough grazing, or even worse. I know from the figures that have come before one in connection with the County of whose War Agricultural Committee I am Chairman, that the decline in arable cultivation is quite appalling; it is quite 40 per cent. as compared with 1921 and 1922. Two hundred thousand acres are nothing. I should be ashamed of it, not proud of it. We ought to have a programme of ploughing up at least 5,000,000 acres for grass and reseeding purposes, and a programme for adding to our arable acreage nearly an equal amount.
The explanation of this small acreage is twofold. First, last autumn the Government could not make up their mind whether they were to encourage ploughing up or not so that they lost a ploughing season, and they meditated all through the winter and introduced the proposal at the most unpromising period of the year. That is one reason for the small acreage. Another reason is that I doubt very much whether many farmers will find they can do it for the money. The land must be got into good condition.
420
But there is another reason. Mention of it is conspicuously absent from the Bill, though not from the noble Earl's speech, and that is the absence of agricultural labour. One of the main reasons for the decline of arable cultivation is the exodus of labour from the village to the town. One has reacted on the other. The uncertainty of arable cultivation has inclined the farmer not to plough any more than he can avoid, to take, as we often say, a lazy method of farming. The steady migration of workers from the country to the town in many districts now makes it almost impossible to do the work. There is nothing in this Bill to deal with that cardinal difficulty.
I notice that in the other House there were debates upon this question, and a proposal that there should be incorporated in the Bill a minimum wage for the agricultural worker was debated twice and received very general support. I hope your Lordships will be willing to give it general support. It is a vital defect in the Bill. I do not believe, myself, you will ever get a rehabilitation of the village unless, as an essential ingredient in our policy, there is provision not only of a decent wage, but of a decent standard of life in his habitation and elsewhere for the agricultural worker. He will not live in the village—at least his children will not—in the cottages which they often have to inhabit. That is a constant source of family dissatisfaction. I do not believe any agricultural policy will succeed unless it has, as an essential ingredient of it, the provision of a very large number of agricultural workers' cottages and the securing for the labourer of a decent minimum standard of wage. I regret exceedingly—I believe many of your Lordships do—that the agricultural worker has been entirely omitted from this Bill in any form.
May I just say one word about machinery? I mean tractors and so on. One of the main reasons, I believe, why many farmers are not able to undertake to plough more land up is that they have not got the labour and, secondly, they cannot afford the machinery. They have not the money with which to buy these things. I think it is a mistake that the Government have decided that the reserve of tractors and other agricultural implements shall not be usable for this ploughing programme as it would be perfectly possible to work out a system of easy

421
payments whereby these implements might be made available to farmers to use in place of their having to find the whole money for purchasing them. This they are not able to do, and it would enormously increase the amount of land that could be ploughed if agricultural implements were made available on easy terms to cultivators. I hope, between now and the Autumn Session, the noble Earl's colleagues will have decided in some such way to give further opportunities to the farmer to cultivate his land.
There is nothing in this Bill, either, relating to the drainage of land. The National Farmers' Union estimate that the amount of land not being properly used, or even usuable, is something like 7,000,000 acres because it suffers from insufficient drainage. The amount of £140,000 a year which is given by one or other of the numerous Bills as a grant towards drainage is a freak. The drainage of millions of acres of land is an essential part of a progressive agricultural policy. There is nothing in this Bill which will provide for any of these (shall I say?) capital improvements. I do not believe they will come, so to say, gradually as the result of these different doles to farmers. They will only come, we believe, as part of a considered scheme of land improvement, as essential ingredients of a national agricultural scheme. However, whilst one regrets these omissions, and particularly the omission with regard to agricultural labour, we welcome the principle in our legislation recognising the necessity for some scheme of reliable prices for the producer. For that reason alone, apart entirely from the fact that it is quite impossible, in the short time allotted to us, to produce detailed Amendments to this Bill, my friends will give their support to the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any detailed examination of the clauses of this Bill which has been moved so ably and pleasantly by the noble Earl opposite, except in one particular, which I will refer to in a moment. Partly no doubt for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has mentioned, this is one of the measures of which we regard the belated arrival in your Lordships' House with particular regret, and almost something approaching
422
resentment, because there are so many members of this House who are thoroughly competent to take part, and I think probably also desirous of taking part in a Second Reading debate of this kind, which in the better old days would, I think, have fully occupied a couple of afternoons of your Lordships' time. On the general question I will only say that speaking from these Benches it is generally realised that if a protective system is to obtain at all, the case of agriculture, either by subsidy or otherwise, is a strong one. In the first place there is a general feeling that the rural population must be maintained for the sake of the health of the country and for other reasons. It is also the case that though this country cannot be self-supporting, yet in times of danger it is indispensable to be able to produce these ordinary necessaries of life which have to be safeguarded in ordinary times just as much as the production of implements of war, which is not entrusted to other countries, however friendly.
The only point on which I wish to make any particular observation is that which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in the course of his speech, and which is dealt with in Part IV of the Bill. I refer to the ploughing up of grassland. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, I think very truly, said that there is a vast quantity of grassland which might well be ploughed. He gave, I think, the figure of 5,000,000 acres. How far that is possible I cannot pretend to know, but I have no doubt that the quantity is considerable. But my query on the subject is of a different kind. It deals with the point not of the quantity of grassland which is to be ploughed, but with the possibility that some grassland might be ploughed which ought to be left alone. I see nothing in the terms of the Bill to prevent old pastures, a certain portion of which surely ought to be maintained, from being ploughed up if a demand is made to do so. There is a temptation to plough pasture because of the great immediate fertility which is obtained for a year or two, and, as we all know, in most farm agreements there are provisions against the ploughing up of old pastures which, it appears to me, might be over-ridden on the ipse dixit of the Minister under certain clauses of this Bill. Upon that I shall no doubt receive an

423
assurance. But I entirely agree that there is a very great deal of poorly laid down grassland which ought to be ploughed, and I think it possible that the figure of 200,000 acres is, as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, says, not as much as it might be.
There is only one more observation I wish to make. It is clear that His Majesty's Government have reason for including in this Bill the three subjects—oats, barley and sheep. The kindred products, if I may so call them, of beef and wheat have been dealt with by earlier measures and undoubtedly, once you start on this slope of protection you are almost bound to go on sliding down. But is it not a regrettable fact that the whole business has to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion? If it had been possible a year ago for His Majesty's Government, either by a Royal Commission or some similar form of inquiry, to enter into a thorough examination of the whole subject, calling all the possible evidence from the different parties involved, from the different types of producer and the different bodies of consumers, I cannot help thinking that a conclusion might have been reached which in the long run would have been fairer to everyone and more satisfactory to the country.
5.39 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it is always much more easy to criticise than it is to commend, but I am not going to allow myself to be led into criticism without first making some acknowledgments. I do hold that the agricultural industry as a whole, whether represented by landowners, by farmers or by the labourers, owes a very deep debt of gratitude to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the whole staff of the Ministry, for having approached this subject with the single-minded purpose of doing the very best possible within the financial limitations laid upon them. It is doubtless true to say that the provisions of the Bill are inadequate completely to deal with the position which presents itself in arable England at any rate. But while it is, I fear, the truth that there is a certain inadequacy, yet it is equally true to say that this measure is a considerable step at least towards the amelioration of what was rapidly becoming an intolerable position.
424
I was a little bit sorry when my noble friend introduced this measure that the exigencies of time compelled him to say that he would forgo the opportunity which it might otherwise have offered both for a general review of the various Bills which the Government have lately introduced and of the existing state of farming, for, quite clearly, this would have been an occasion for such a review, which I think would have been exceedingly interesting to listen to and would have given to noble Lords who are perhaps not quite so familiar as others with agricultural questions, and to the public in general through the medium of the Press, an opportunity of taking a broader view of the matters under discussion than is possible for them to take when measures are produced little by little in the manner suggested by noble Lords who have already spoken. But, inasmuch as my noble friend has set that restraint upon himself, I fear that it is a restraint which must apply also to those who follow him.
I would, however, like, if I may, in a few words to take up what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in respect of the effect that this Bill will have or may not have upon the agricultural worker, and the regret which the noble Lord expressed that the agricultural worker does not figure in this Bill. Surely he has very largely mistaken the purpose for which this Bill has been introduced. The noble Earl, when introducing the measure, made it perfectly clear, and indeed the measure itself makes it perfectly clear, that this Bill is not a Bill which is guaranteeing a profit to the producer. It is attempting nothing of the kind. Agriculturists would be deeply grateful for any measure which guaranteed a profit upon the basis of the cost of production plus—as it is commonly called. This Bill does not purport to give any such profit as agriculturists would be so glad to have. What this Bill does is to endeavour to put a bottom to what has been a bottomless market, and to that extent to provide against the really terrifying losses which agriculturists, particularly in arable England, have suffered within the course of the last twelve months.
I personally regard this measure as being immensely helpful to the prospects of the agricultural worker. There is no purpose in endeavouring to controvert a

425
word that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in respect of the shortage of labour and the causation thereof. I would not controvert that for a moment. But I feel sure he would agree with me in realising that there still happily remain in the countryside a very large number of persons whose ambition is not to go to the town but to remain where they are. Even without any of the additional inducements which many would wish to see offered to them, the real fear at present in those men's minds is the loss of employment which would force them to give up the profession of their lives. That menace is always present as things now are to every labouring man, at any rate in arable England. At any moment the farmer's bank may decline to meet his weekly wages bill, and that being the case every man so employed is under the perpetual menace of losing his employment at short notice.
A Bill of this character really offers to the labouring man himself a greater degree of security than it does to any other of the sections employed in agriculture, and I am rather surprised that the Government through their spokesman have not made more of that particular aspect of the case. Providing you can insure the farmer again loss which it will be beyond his capacity to bear, once you do that, you do give to the labouring man in his employ what is of greater value to that man than anything else, and that is the expectation of continued employment. Whereas this Bill does not purport to give a profit to the farmer, and for that reason does not lend itself to the insertion of a fair-wages clause such as a profit-making Bill would, it really does in my mind give to the labouring man an expectation of continued employment which at the moment is of greater value to him than anything else that could be given to him.
The Bill does stabilise within certain low limits the price of oats, of barley and of sheep. All members of your Lordships' House will, of course, realise at once that the value of those proposals to farmers is dependent upon the costs of production not rising beyond what they stand at at present. For instance, the price of oats is to be stabilised at 8s. a cwt., that is 1s. a stone, and all members of your Lord-chips' House will know that in the days before the War 12S. a sack, that is 1s. a
426
stone, was the normal price for oats. Well, the costs of production to-day are more than double what they were in pre-War days, but the guaranteed price of oats is not to be higher than it was before the War. It is very much better to get 8s. a cwt. than to take 5s. or 5s. 6d. which was the prevailing price last year, I agree, but if the costs of production were to rise, as they very well may, beyond the already high figures which prevail at the present time, these efforts of the Government to stabilise prices and to put a bottom in the market will be of very small account, because the cost of production may at any time really make it impossible for the farmer to continue growing this particular crop. However, I mention that only by the way.
There is a feature in the Bill which is thoroughly bad. It is almost impossible, I suppose, to avoid criticism. I have tried very hard to show how grateful both I and my fellow agriculturists must necessarily be for this particular measure, but it is impossible, I suppose—having, I was going to say, a gift but perhaps it would be considered more a vice that way—to avoid criticism. The criticism I would offer is that this Bill embodies an abomination, and that is the limitation of production. I am well aware that it must, because if financial aid is to be sought from the Treasury there must be a limit to that aid—at least, that is the Treasury argument, I do not know that it would be an agriculturist's argument—and therefore, in order to place a limitation upon the financial aid to be given, limitation of production has to follow. But it is fundamentally unsound. It might be very well in the case of a large country with a small population, but in the case of a small country with a great population, in large measure dependent on what it grows itself for the ability to feed its people, any policy which limits production must be folly; it cannot be sound. This Bill does embody—as, indeed, every Agriculture Bill of recent years has embodied—that same abominable policy.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Coal Act and the Cotton Bill embody it; it is all the same.
LORD HASTINGS: Exactly. We know the reasons; I am not in a position to criticise those reasons, but they are in their cumulative effect abominable. I

427
should like to protest against what I cannot acknowledge to be their necessity, though for their necessity I know that a good case can be made out. In addition to that, what every agriculturist must of course see is the inadequacy of the Bill to meet the real needs of the case. It is impossible to acknowledge that the conditions and terms of this Bill do adequately meet the case, even though they go as far as is possible at the moment towards meeting it. Having said that, I should like to refer for a moment to one or two other things which fell from my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to attract capital back to the land. Something very much more drastic and sensational than this Bill will be needed for that purpose. Although it is wholly irrelevant to this measure, I am going to take the liberty of saying here and now that only one thing would attract capital back to the land, and that is the removal of Death Duties from application to agricultural land. There is only one way of doing it, and that is the way in which it can be done; there is no other. No number of Agriculture Bills will have the effect which the noble Earl and I and other agriculturists so greatly desire.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, referred in the course of his speech to the danger of a ploughing-up policy which might have the effect of disturbing good pastures which should be left alone. That is a very grave danger, but happily it was dealt with—no doubt the noble Marquess missed it—by way of question and answer in another place. It was pointed out that the Minister was not taking in this Bill any powers whatever to override the essential tenancy agreements which control that matter, and that therefore those who were fearful of such a thing happening—and they had good reason for fear—need be fearful no longer. I felt perhaps that it might be right that I should mention that at the present moment.
There are certain features of this Bill which give particular anxiety to those who are concerned to maintain the fertility of the land. It so happens that, all through the ages and now, the question of maintaining fertility has been an identical interest both with the owner of the soil and with the nation as a whole. It is
428
vital to the nation as a whole that the fertility of the soil should be maintained, and it has for obvious reasons been vital to the landowner that the fertility of his land should be maintained. Those who will and do remember the Bills which began in 1906 and have continued to the present time will remember that in the earlier days there was a concentrated and successful effort to remove from the landowner the power which he then possessed for the maintenance of fertility, on the ground largely that that power could be and in some cases was exercised tyrannically. That power was entirely removed. Those who sat in the House in those days will remember perfectly well the warnings which were given by members of the House who had agricultural knowledge of the inevitable consequences of that action. Those consequences are now apparent to all and sundry. What has happened is that the removal from the landowner of the power and also the duty to retain and maintain the fertility of the soil, without replacing it by any other power, has had the effect which is now so obvious and so much lamented and has cost the taxpayer so much money: the land has depreciated in fertility to an alarming extent.
This Bill is the first of many which recognise that something either now or soon will have to be done by way of replacing that power which was taken away from the landowner. I am not here to deny that that power was exercised in certain cases tyrannically. It is ancient history now and it would not be worth going back upon it, but I would say this: that no one is in a position to maintain fertility of the soil and supervise it so effectively and so cheaply as the landowner. It should not have been impossible, and it should not now be impossible, to ensure that the landowner should be kept in what I will call that essential employment, and at the same time to institute certain safeguards which would prevent him from using that authority in either a tyrannical or an uninformed manner. What is going to be done under this Bill by way of replacing this lost authority? Clause 4 acknowledges by inference that an authority over cultivation is now required. Clause 34 gives the Minister for the first time the power to inspect land compulsorily. It is a very revolutionary power. At the present time no one other than a policeman has any

429
right to go upon anybody's land—although there is nothing to prevent him from looking over the fence. I believe that these crop reporters upon whom we are informed that the Minister is going to rely have hitherto confined their utility to looking over the fence. I only hope that some of them have very long sight!
Under Clause 4 of the Bill it is proposed that a certain degree of power shall be exercised over the grower of oats. I have no doubt that that will also apply to barley and eventually to ploughing up as well. It is provided that the Minister shall have power in certain cases to withhold or to diminish the subsidy which is made available by the State. As I have already said, Clause 34 provides for inspection. It seems a most remarkable thing that any landowner should even cast eyes in the direction of control, but provided the control is going to be exercised by persons competent to exercise it, the time has unquestionably come when that control has to be installed. Cross-cropping has been practised to such a degree in recent years that the fertility of the soil of England has depreciated to an alarming extent. Cross-cropping—that is, the continuous growing of corn crops—is permitted. No landowner has the power to stop it. It is perfectly true that a landowner can appeal to an agricultural committee of the county and obtain a certificate of bad farming, but those landowners who have tried have found that they have wasted their time and that they might just as well have left the matter untouched.
The trouble is that agricultural committees have permissive and not mandatory powers. Many agricultural committees are fully competent to exercise those powers, but when powers are permissive it is very difficult to get members of a community to exercise them over other members of the same community. That is evident. The question that both Parliament, acting on behalf of the taxpayer, and the landowner, looking at the matter in his own behalf, have to determine, is whether in each particular case the provisions of the safeguards included in the Bill are sufficient. I would like to make it perfectly clear that neither in my view, nor in the view of any experienced agriculturist, has the occupier of the soil any undue dose of original sin. He does not farm badly because he
430
wants to. Let that be made perfectly clear. It is economics which have caused the farmer to run out the fertility of his soil. There is no occasion, and no right, for Parliament, speaking for the taxpayer, to throw stones at the farmer. Economics have been too much for him and the soil has suffered accordingly. It has suffered very often also in the case of the owner-occupier, who, one would imagine, would look after his own land. Economics have frequently been too much for him.
There is also one other aspect which must be referred to. It is what I would describe as the depredations of a large mechanised company who, being subject to no restrictions of any sort or kind, are able to farm very extensively, and having the run of sufficient land to enable them to farm cheaply are able, by reason of the fact that there is no control, to farm out and sterilize large areas, and increasingly large areas, in England. Here is a Bill which recognises these things by inference, and it proposes to make use of persons appointed by the Minister to inspect and to report. Who are those persons to be? The noble Earl spoke of crop reporters. Do not let us deceive ourselves into thinking too well of these crop reporters. Three hundred of them in all Great Britain! I have tried very hard to find out who the crop reporters were in my own county. I suppose they exist, but nobody is aware of their existence. Have they ever functioned? Possibly they have, but it must have been by night. Have they any competence? It is extremely doubtful. If these are the people who are going to pass their eyes over the farms which are not well-farmed, and report to the Minister, with the sole object of preventing the subsidy from being paid, it is not sufficient, and I cannot think that the land of England is going to be cultivated in the future any better than it has been in recent years.
I should like very much in Committee to put Amendments on the Paper which would deal with the matter drastically, with great fairness to the occupier, with proper regard to the taxpayer, and some regard to the landowners as well, but to quote from the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and from the noble Marquess, how are we to deal with the matter? We are to take the Committee stage on Wednesday. Are we to put down Amendments, and if they are carried in this House, as they would be, when the Bill goes

431
back to the House of Commons are we to be told that all we have done is to lose the Bill, and lose the advantages which the farmers must have? I have made my protest on that particular subject, and I do not propose to enlarge upon it, but now the temptation to put down drastic Amendments for the Committee stage is almost irresistible.
I would conclude with one more reference. It is to Clause 32 of the Bill, on the subject of agricultural credits. It is proposed to offer to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation a subsidy not exceeding 60,000 a year, the exact disposal of which is to be arranged between the Minister and the Treasury. It can be held quite reasonably that this £60,000 to be made available to the Mortgage Corporation for the purpose of enabling that Corporation to continue loans to agriculturists at 4¼ per cent., is thereby assisting agricultural credits. It is perfectly true that it will, but at the same time it has got to be borne in mind that agriculturists of all sorts at present hold approximately £6,000,000 of loan from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and pay five per cent., plus sinking fund. These earlier borrowers, who are carrying this heavy burden, are not to derive any benefit whatever from the subsidy under this Bill, although these earlier borrowers are taxpayers and will have to contribute to the £60,000 which is going to be offered to new borrowers. Moreover, this £60,000 a year, although it can be represented as assistance to agricultural credit, is also a guarantee to the debenture holders, and the taxpayer is being invited to contribute a subsidy which can and will automatically be used for ensuring to those debenture holders a rate of interest, for we are informed that unless this money is contributed by the State the Corporation will have to wind up, for the reason that it has so much on deposit that it finds it impossible to lend.
It is true that the earlier borrowers of £6,000,000 are enabled or will be enabled at any time to convert their mortgage from 5 to 4¼ per cent., but they will be compelled to pay a premium of 5 per cent. in order to take advantage of that fact. The payment of 5 per cent. premium is going automatically to absorb
432
six and a half years of the benefit derived by conversion, but as all borrowers are taxpayers and many are Surtax payers as well it may well be that the six and a half years will be extended to thirteen years, and if they have to borrow the premium then it will increase to fifteen the number of years during which they will have to wait for the advantage, and as the whole number of years which have to be waited until the debentures are paid off is twenty, it will be obvious that there is not much advantage to the old borrowers in conversion. I propose to put on the Paper an Amendment which will enable both Houses to take cognisance of the particular scheme which is agreed between the Minister and the Treasury. The moment is not suitable now for putting down the kind of Amendment which would be a direct instruction to the Minister as to how he should deal with the money, but I should very greatly hope that the Government would be able to accept a short Amendment providing that this scheme shall come before both Houses of Parliament before becoming effective, just as the Barley Scheme and similar schemes in other Bills have to come before Parliament before they take effect. I propose to do that so that this rather technical matter can be properly debated, not now or on Wednesday, but later when the scheme is laid on the Table. I must apologise to your Lordships for keeping you so long, but this, after all, is a Bill which affects agriculture in its every part, and it seems impossible to dispose of it in a few moments. I thank your Lordships for the tolerance with which you have listened to me.
6.10 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, like my noble friend who has just sat down, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Earl, to the Government and to the Land Commissioner for this instalment of what is, after all, the most determined and the most comprehensive effort to restore some measure of prosperity to agriculture that I have known during my occupation of a seat in this House, which I regret to say covers a period of nearly forty years. Whether this policy is successful or not will depend on many circumstances, some of them beyond the control of the Government;

433
but whether it fails or succeeds there will not be many bodies in a position to throw a stone against the principle which is involved in this Bill. After all, for at least twelve years the Central Landowners' Association have been pressing for some measure of guaranteed price, the National Farmers' Union have been whole-heartedly in favour of the same, and the Labour Party have shown in the very excellent memorandum produced by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and Mr. George Dallas, that in principle they undoubtedly press for the same thing. It is true that the Central Landowners' Association would have wished, and I think still wish, that a greater measure of assistance should come out of the pockets of the foreigner than out of the pockets of their fellow countrymen, and indeed many of them still believe that the levy subsidy, so often and so consistently urged by a late Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Walter Elliot, might have been made more use of. It is true that the National Farmers Union, when they talk of a guaranteed price, mean a profitable price for a man who farms adequately well, and that is what they urge, and personally I think logically and rightly; and it is true that the policy is superimposed on the Labour Party by their adoption of the principle of the nationalisation of the land. But the principle is one that is supported by all those three bodies.
When I express my gratitude and admiration for this Bill that is very far from saying that it is a perfect Bill. I think this is a Bill which is capable of much amendment. I believe that your Lordships might very well have improved it in more than one direction. I regret with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that such opportunity has been denied to us, and I will express very sincerely my sympathy with the noble Earl on the same ground. To the Parts of this Bill which deal with oats and barley I have this criticism to make. It seems to me to be quite illogical to say that a person who grows wheat is to get less help for his oats and barley than the person who does not grow wheat, and it seems to me that the distinction is really an incentive in many cases to depart from that balanced agriculture to which it is so fashionable to pay lip service. I wonder if your Lordships would consider whether it is, in fact,
434
a saving to the country that the man who grows wheat should receive a less subsidy than the man who grows only oats and barley. I suggest that the incentive to the man who can grow wheat will be to grow nothing but wheat. We have been told that the cost to the country for each acre of wheat last year was in the neighbourhood of £4 5s. Is it a saving to the country to pay £4 5s. instead of paying £2 13s. 4d.? It is not a saving that is apparent to me.
In the same Part of the Bill there is a clause dealing with negligent farming, and I am entirely in agreement with the last speaker that this clause will be a dead letter. I do not believe that it will act at all, but I am not so disturbed with regard to that as possibly some of your Lordships are. In the first place that does not apply to wheat, and if the clause became objectionable to the man who was growing barley and oats badly, it would be open to him in very many cases to say, "I am in trouble in my cultivation of barley and oats. I will grow nothing but wheat, and I will do that as badly as I like." That is one reason why I am not worried about this clause becoming a dead letter. The second thing is this, that in a vast majority of cases of bad farming, that bad farming is due solely to the fact that at the present moment it pays better than good farming. Once agriculture is in such a position that good farming pays better than bad farming I venture to think that the vast majority of farmers will farm well instead of farming badly, as many of them are forced by necessity to do now. I am therefore not so worried about that clause, but I still venture to think that in course of time, and before agriculture is in a thoroughly satisfactory position, it will be necessary to have some central body—I trust nonpolitical—with branches and districts, which will be charged with the duty of seeing to fertility, cultivation and possibly wages, and possibly also rents.
Part II deals with that most difficult of all agricultural subjects, barley. Barley was always a difficult subject to deal with, for the reason that it was divided into two separate departments, malting barley and feeding barley. But it is a worse proposition now, because malting barley is divided again, and only quite recently, into malting barley that goes into beer and into spirits and vinegar,

435
and that rapidly growing portion of malting barley which goes into Horlicks' Milk and Ovaltine, and all those preparations which minister to that delightful advertising complaint "Night starvation." Without seeing the scheme it is obviously quite impossible to criticise this portion of the Bill at all, but I might be permitted perhaps to express my sympathy with the framers of the scheme, and still more with the Barley Advisory Committee who have to work it. Their task will be hard indeed.
With regard to sheep, they represent a problem only second in difficulty to that of barley, and I congratulate the Government on their courage in tackling this subject because, after all, sheep both in peace and war are of vital importance to agriculture and to the safety of the people of this country. I find one very grave criticism with regard to this portion of the Bill, and that is the severe limitation that is placed upon the price insurance of this commodity. We are told it will only extend up to 27,000,000, and the present sheep population is 26,800,000, leaving a margin of 200,000 to overtake. This is a Development Bill. I understand "development" means to increase. When you develop your muscles you increase your muscles; when you develop your resources you increase your resources, so I have always understood.
Surely when this Bill was framed there must have been two considerations which did not occur to His Majesty's Government. The first was that for years they have been pressing the people of this country to improve their pastures. They are giving them money now to improve their pastures, I thought to put stock and sheep on them. Surely they anticipated an increased sheep population when they urged people to provide better and bigger grazing. Further than that, while 200,000 is the nominal margin in reserve, really it is much less than that for this reason, that during the last few years, from year to year, there has been a pressure to have smaller sheep—that is the fashion—to compete with the sheep that come from New Zealand and elsewhere. In the sheep scheme it will be found that there is a special desire to have smaller sheep than we had in the past. The truth of the matter is that the 27,000,000 sheep will only be equal to about three-fourths
436
of the mutton there was from 26,000,000 sheep a few years back. That is a retrograde move, as far as mutton is concerned, of a very substantial kind, and I cannot but think that that consideration was not present in the mind of His Majesty's Government or indeed of the noble Earl who has introduced the Bill to your Lordships.
With regard to Part IV, and the ploughing up of all pastures, this I understand is to be a war measure. The noble Earl did not say so, but I have certainly heard it said in high official circles that the ploughing up policy must be regarded as a war measure. If so, I suggest it should not appear in this Bill which, after all, is an instalment of a long-term policy. I am well aware there are parts of the country where this ploughing-up policy is eagerly welcomed, and therefore I am not going to criticise it because in my own part of the country very little use will be made of it; but, if I may express a personal opinion, it would be to the effect that if the Government are going to spend £500,000, which is the sum they aim at, with a view to increasing food production in time of war, and improving the fertility of the soil, they would have had more value for that money from the point of view for which it is intended if it were expended on land drainage rather than in this manner. That is purely a personal point of view, but I hold it very strongly. I have made criticisms, but that does not mean I am either ungrateful or without admiration for this measure, because I have both gratitude and admiration.
As I generally do when any big measure of this sort comes before your Lordships' House, I have looked at the debates in another place to see what are the main criticisms with regard to this Bill. I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find with some gratification that there are only two main criticisms. One is that this large sum of money, which varies in the mouths of different speakers, will go mainly and inevitably into the hands of the landlord, and the second is that none of it will go into the pocket of the agricultural labourer. So far as these criticisms are genuine—I trust they are—and not merely political, they seem to overlook two facts. The first is that the landlord is unable now

437
to increase his rent to the tenant except by arbitration, and few landowners indeed that I know have gone to arbitration. On the other hand many tenants have done so because they nearly always get their rents reduced.
As to none of the benefits to agriculture in general going into the pocket of the agricultural worker, surely it has been forgotten that wages at the present moment are governed by the Agricultural Wages Act which set up the Agricultural Wages Board. It was the Party of noble Lords opposite, who are so conspicuously absent now, which set up the Agricultural Wages Board. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, standing up among those empty Benches and saying that this was the agricultural worker's charter inasmuch as for all time, he said, whenever there was any money for agriculture, the agricultural worker was assured of his fair share. These agricultural wages boards have done very well. I have heard no complaint on the score of the work they have done from agricultural workers. The trouble has been they have been asked to produce a quart out of a pint pot. They have not been able to find the money which the farmer has not got to give to the labourer, though by this Bill and other means, when the quart pot becomes full, then I am thoroughly assured the agricultural wages boards will do their duty and pass on his fair share to the agricultural worker. If an Amendment were adopted which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, appeared to threaten he would re-introduce in your Lordships' House, under which no one should get any help under this Bill unless he paid every worker £2 per week, what would be the result? I suggest that very few working farmers would be in a position to take any advantage of this Bill whatever because it would cost them more than they could get from it, and the unfortunate agricultural labourer would have no chance of getting any share of the benefits which this Bill undoubtedly would give.
Here we have a Bill presented to us which has been agreed by all parties as far as I know. I should have thought this would have been an opportunity to set politics aside. Agriculture has lost heavily by politics in the past, and I think most earnestly that if all Parties in the State could agree, as far as this measure and other measures for agriculture
438
are concerned, to give politics a miss, we might hope to see a greater measure of benefit not only from this Bill but from the other Bills with which I hope in due course the Government will follow this one. I regard this, I hope rightly, not as a final stage of the long-term policy but merely as an instalment, however good and big it may be.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, rising after the last two speeches I find myself in some difficulty, because they were both so eloquent and both so full of knowledge. Moreover, I have been in contact with the two noble Lords who made those speeches over the terms of this Bill and other Agriculture Bills for so long that my views very nearly coincide with theirs, because we have discussed things almost I was going to say ad nauseum and have arrived, certainly amongst ourselves, at an agreed series of views. Therefore anything I may say this afternoon will be really in the nature of a footnote to those two most eloquent speeches. I would first make reference to something that the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said regarding the Benches opposite. I could only wish that noble Lords who are in opposition in this House had been able to sustain their interest in our great industry of agriculture sufficiently long this afternoon to hear his appeal for unanimity and no politics in agriculture.
There is no need for me to stress the importance of this Bill. That has been done sufficiently by previous speakers. Nor is there any need for me to regret the short time which we have for consideration of the terms of the Bill in all its aspects. It is a great pity, however, that is so, because open discussion in your Lordships' House, or for that matter anywhere else, very often brings to light weaknesses and clarifies difficulties in a way which one can get in no other manner. But the Bill is welcomed because it is designed to assist farmers, and I hope its welcome will not be too moderate when what is in the Bill reaches the farmers themselves. I will come at once to what I think is the most important part of the Bill, one which has been dealt with already very fully by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I refer to the questions of the control of cropping and the maintenance of the fertility of the land. The

439
noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has dealt with that very fully indeed, but I do hope it is realised by your Lordships that we are only really to-day at the beginning of knowledge as to what loss of fertility means. It does not only mean the taking out of the land without replacement those foods necessary to the growth of life. It means also, possibly, an increase in the liability to disease. Already I think there are two fungus diseases about which very little is known but which are on the increase, and which seem to follow either mechanical farming or cross cropping, and which do quite definitely affect the yield of our crops. I was informed only to-day that produce from land which has gone down in its fertility seems also to have ill effects both on human beings and animals who consume that produce; but those are things in regard to which our knowledge is still in its infancy.
Loss of fertility may therefore be a bigger thing than even we realise. It is all the more desirable that every possible step should be taken to avoid this cropping, which will involve a loss of fertility in our land. I am, I think perhaps more than the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and certainly I believe more than the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, an unrepentant believer in the value of the landlord and tenant system. I was almost horrified to hear my noble friend on my left proposing an independent corporation to control cropping on our land. I believe, for reasons which were given so ably by Lord Hastings, that the landlord is the man who can best and most cheaply preserve the fertility of the land both in his own interest and in the interests of the country, and one must remember that, although there are a large number of owner-farmers still to-day, the larger part of our land in this country is farmed under the landlord and tenant system, and I think, so far as they can afford it, even the owner-farmers try to preserve the fertility of their land.
In this Bill the process of investigating negligent farming is to be done by officials of the Ministry. I need not go into the details, which were explained by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but so far as I can see in the Bill the motive for discovering where there is negligence in the cultivation of the land comes initially and all the time from the Ministry and its
440
officials and from nowhere else. I do not know that I like that very much. In any case the whole process seems to be rather like farming from Whitehall. I quite appreciate that the Minister is going to disburse the country's money as a result of this measure. Therefore it is for him to see that the money is disbursed to the best advantage and that no disadvantage is suffered as a result of its disbursement. I do not know that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that the provisions in the Bill are completely a dead letter. I do, however, feel that there ought to be in the Bill—the noble Earl possibly can reassure me in his reply—some assurance that either the landlord or some other body which is interested in agriculture should have the right, if he or it so wishes, to have any representations regarding negligent farming looked into by the Ministry's officials. It seems to me that at the moment the initiative comes entirely from the Ministry. The landowner or any representative agricultural body is completely cut out. If the noble Earl could give me some assurance that they are not so cut out it would go, I think, a long way to making those provisions look better than they do.
One other matter to which I wish to refer is the subject of fertility and sheep. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, pointed out with great force that the figure of 27,000,000 sheep is a limiting figure of the assistance given. It does not limit the production, because of course you can keep as many sheep as you like, but it does limit the amount of assistance given to a comparatively small figure, considering the sheep population to-day. That is quite true, and it is also quite true that sheep are smaller and therefore the volume of mutton that would be produced would be less. It is also true that rarely in the past has the figure of 27,000,000 been exceeded. But in connection with the question of fertility, what I want to point out is that the tendency lately has been to increase the number of grass-fed sheep and to decrease the number of sheep which are fed on the arable land. They have so decreased very considerably, and I would have liked to see in this Bill a considerable increase in the maximum number of sheep that will receive assistance, if you like so to put it, if only from the point of view of encouraging farmers to keep more sheep on the arable land and so

441
help to preserve its fertility. It is a most important point and it is of the greatest importance in the Eastern counties, in the poor and high lands in the Southern counties and in the Lincolnshire wolds, where sheep have always in the past been an important means of keeping the fertility of the soil.
Now I would like to say a word on the subject of the barley proposals, particularly with reference to malting barley. There are certain facts with regard to malting barley which I think it is desirable to bear in mind when considering the Government's proposals. It is difficult to consider them because we do not know what they are. We only know that there will be a scheme, and I must express gratitude to the noble Earl for saying that he will let us have, so to speak, advance copies of the scheme. So far as malting barley is concerned, apart from those delightful beverages which the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, mentioned, beer is the principal home of malting barley. Now the fact is that the consumption of beer has gone down by about half—rather more than half, I think—and the production area of barley has not gone down to a corresponding extent. Not only that, but constant researches by various very skilled people have increased production and have also improved the quality so that you have a larger supply of malting barley than is warranted by the consumption of beer. Any scheme which does not take that into account may find itself in difficulty because those are economic facts and though we may sidetrack economic facts for a short time with a scheme we cannot do so for ever. There is, of course, a perfectly simple way of dealing with the whole malting barley question, if the noble Earl can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a short Bill reducing the penal taxation on beer and so increase consumption, but I am afraid that that is not a possible solution at the moment.
There is only one other thing I wish to mention about barley. The noble Earl divided barley into barley destined for an industrial purpose and barley not destined for an industrial purpose, and said the scheme will contain provision for securing that barley designated as not destined for an industrial purpose shall not be used for an industrial purpose. It will be very helpful if some indication can be given
442
as to how he is going to prevent a merchant buying ordinary grinding barley and then, after a decent interval, passing it on to someone else for an industrial purpose at an enhanced price. It seems to me very difficult, and if the difficulty has been got over the Ministry deserve every possible credit for their ingenuity.
May I in passing also mention one small thing? I know that Parliamentary draftsmen are a very excellent body of men, who have been working under great difficulties, but they are human like everyone else and they have certain failings. The failing which I dislike more than anything else is their apparent love for the word "designated," which appears in almost every Bill which comes before your Lordships. I always think "described" is a better word than "designated" and I wish they would not use "designated" quite so often.
Finally, I would like to say a word about the ploughing subsidy which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, criticised as not being adequate. I think he is entirely wrong there. I look on this £2 an acre more as an encouragement to persuade those who have grassland suitable for this purpose to start a practice which they will learn in time does not really need a subsidy. I had the opportunity not so very long ago of going to see a big demonstration of the ploughing up of grassland, and on grassland that was suitable for the purpose which had been ploughed up and reseeded the results were astounding. A good deal of it had been done long before any announcement by the Ministry by farmers who realise the value of ploughing up old grassland, the usefulness of which had gone and which was worn out. That does not apply to the good £3 an acre land which is still producing usefully, nor to the very poor land where in fact grass does not nor ever will grow very well. So £2 an acre subsidy is quite adequate, and I believe in course of time it will be found that the fanner will learn that it is to his own interest as well as to the country's interest to plough up and make better use of such land as is suitable for that purpose.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill is too old a hand with Agriculture Bills to expect vociferous thanks from the agricultural community as a whole. I confess I am not prepared to give that tremendous praise to the Bill which would sound

443
sweet in his ears. I look on it rather as a drowning man looks upon a spar which saves him from going down for the third time. He has a certain affection for that spar, but he keeps his real thanks for the man who takes him out of the water and restores him to the bosom of his family. I hope that some day a Minister may be able to do that for agriculture.
6.49 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, we are pleased in Scotland that the Government have taken up to a large extent the proposals of the Chamber of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union and that they have recognised the importance of oats in our farming. I hope the Government will also have observed that those with most experience in sheep farming consider that better terms may quite likely be necessary to enable them to pay their wages and other costs which they have to incur, in order to run their businesses properly and make a profit. It has somehow come to be considered that the costs in connection with sheep farming in our hill lands are very slight, but we are realising that a very considerable amount of expenditure is necessary—much more than was necessary formerly—to preserve the quality of our sheep and preserve the nutritional value of the land so that it may produce good sheep and keep them free from disease. I would like to mention the case of farms in climates where probably the normal cropping would consist of about two-thirds or three-quarters oats and about one-third or one-quarter wheat. I understand that in such cases there will be a rather serious disadvantage, resulting in a tendency to grow only oats in future and not as large a proportion of wheat as there should be. Lord Hastings has very rightly pointed out the importance of preserving the correct amount of cropping, and I hope the Government will do a little more, in the interests of good farming and for the benefit of future generations, to ensure that we do have the correct cropping and not overcropping.
Apart from these matters, of which I hope a little more consideration may be possible, I should like only to say a few more words to support the Government and to emphasize the real necessity that
444
there is for their action to-day. The proposals should help to stop the losses of our farmers, and the only question is whether they will go far enough. It should not at any rate be thought, as it may be thought outside agricultural circles, that these proposals will enable farmers to make money very easily. They will in any case have to know their jobs well and to work hard, even with the assistance which is coming, because farming under conditions as we know them is very difficult and complicated. I wonder if it is realised how very serious is the effect of the loss of capital and savings by nearly every farmer in recent years. Improvement and recovery cannot now be instantaneous, and very much expenditure in advance is required on most farms to enable full benefit to be gained from what is now being done.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able really to restore confidence to the industry, and thus enable somehow those concerned to get that credit, and with the new confidence to be able to borrow to purchase their requirements. I am glad to find a very widespread approval for the proposals. There is indeed a minority, a very small minority, who are opposing, and they are in some districts active in propaganda. They appear to be eager to disallow these advantages to agriculture in case some of the advantage may possibly go to the landlord. There are, we know, those who have said ever since the War that every beneficial Act would only put money into the pockets of the landlord and result in higher rents. The actual fact is that rents are to-day the same as or lower than they were a few years ago.
LORD HASTINGS: Before the War.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Or before the War. The costs of maintaining farms are naturally higher, as are also the taxes. It is now up to all of us to combine to take advantage of what the Government are doing for our industry. Landowners, their sons and agents will more than ever before be required to know their jobs and to assist and combine with their farmers in carrying them out. If we can do so with the help now coming to us, it will be to the advantage of the country, and the proposals will then merit the support of all other industries as well as our own.
6.54 p.m.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I shall not be more than a few minutes, after all these good speeches that we have heard. I rise purely to say that we have hardly been grateful enough, in view of the political circumstances of to-day, towards our Government for producing this Bill at this juncture. I think it is a very notable thing to get money out of the Treasury even to the extent that it has been got, when money is so badly needed elsewhere. I should, however, also like, if I may, to pay a tribute to the conception of this Bill, which seems to me better conceived, more carefully thought out in all its details, as well as better inspired in its general principles, than most Bills which have been in front of us for many a year. I should also like to add that in my opinion the statement made by the noble Earl who introduced the Bill was one of the clearest and most helpful statements that I have heard in this House. Having said so much, I should like to say that it is still necessary to hammer into the public the fact that the whole conception of this Bill is only one, as has been well said, of putting a bottom in the market. It is necessary for the reason that that bottom, even now, is so very far down.
Let me illustrate my point. I want to get in my harvest next month. Will the prices that have been offered me, that I shall get in the market, plus the subsidy which I shall obtain, justify me in going to the labour market and offering £5, £6 or £7 per week to an unskilled labourer who does not know his farming job? Of course not. The prices that the farmer will receive will justify no such figure. Yet the public money which is being paid out to a contractor who is building a militia camp apparently justifies him in numerous cases, in hundreds of cases, in drawing the labour from our farms and paying £5, £6 and £7 a week for the erection of huts to men who have no previous skill whatever at that work. This question of wages remains unfortunately the real test of whether or not farming can continue to exist in this country. However well-conceived the provisions of this Bill may have been, they do not do more than enable us, with a very low price guaranteed to us for our products, to pay more than a very low price to the labourer. That remains the
446
principal and the overwhelming difficulty of farming, and is the difficulty which sooner or later in the national interest must be tackled.
Having said that, I should like to welcome with all my heart the recognition that the nation has a definite interest in retaining and maintaining the fertility of the soil. That interest is very shyly and coyly expressed in Clause 4, almost as if the Government were afraid to say that the nation was concerned with the fertility of the soil. After all, that provision does not go further than to say "I am not paying you to rob my land." Even so, it is a first step, together with the setting-up of the Fertility Committee a year or two ago, to express what is really one of the most vital interests the nation can have, and I am duly grateful for this beginning. One small mistake has, however, been made. Barley and, more particularly, oats are crops that draw from the land. Beans and peas are crops that maintain the fertility of the land. Why were not beans and peas, most valuable of all our crops, included with oats and thought worthy of the subsidy? That, I think, was frankly a mistake.
Now I want to say a few words about the barley subsidy. I gathered, though I was not quite sure whether I was right, from the noble Earl, that the levy subsidy scheme was to be dropped. I sincerely trust not. I cannot see myself, and have not seen for several years, why a modified levy subsidy scheme on the terms of the Wheat Act cannot be applied to barley. That Wheat Act is so extraordinarily successful that it should come as a convincing argument in favour of its adaptation to other crops. Take the position to-day. We have wheat lower than it has been for 250 years. Obviously the farmer would have to go out of business if he were not helped. Obviously the amount of the help being found by the consumer to help the farmer must have gone up in equally staggering proportions to the reduction in the price. The net result is only that the baker has to pay 27s. a sack, with the quota on, and the consumer gets bread almost cheaper than in any other country in the world, although he has borne the insurance, as it were, of the wheat quota. I cannot help hoping that to a limited extent that precedent will be followed up, and that the noble Earl and the advisers of the

447
Minister will be able to work out a policy of levy subsidy for barley. I promised I would not be long, and I sit down with many congratulations on the introduction of this Bill.
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the range of subjects that has been covered in this debate is such that almost every main head that comes under the term "agricultural industry" has been brought into consideration, and it is no easy task, especially at this hour, to draw from the threads of the debate the salient features which require a reply. I think we can be agreed that the debate has shown that the provisions of this Bill are generally acceptable. It is a matter of regret, and each speaker has given expression to it, that a Bill which has such a wide range should come to this House at so late a date in the Session and I am particularly grateful to Lord Phillimore for having given credit to the Government for the fact that in spite of the emergency considerations which have to be taken into account at this time the Bill has been brought before your Lordships' House even at such a late date.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, said that to bring a measure of this kind to your Lordships' House now was not a question for resentment on the part of the members of your Lordships' House but was an affront to the House. It is not for me to say that this is a question that would have come to your Lordships' House at an earlier date if the times had been more normal. It is the unsettled conditions which have caused an unsettled programme in another place and it is for that reason, as the Leader of the House has explained, that the Bill, could not be brought up at an earlier date. I repeat that I owe an apology to the House and I can assure the members of the House that it is perhaps as inconvenient, if not more so, to persons in charge of a Bill that all the stages of that Bill should be dealt with in the space of one week, as it is to any other person.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, made a criticism to the effect that this Bill was another instance of piecemeal legislation and he intimated that it would have been more satisfactory if three or four years ago his Majesty's Government had
448
brought in a fully comprehensive measure which would render unnecessary these Bills dealing with commodity after commodity of agricultural production. But after the passing of this Bill it will be possible to say that no staple commodity on the farm is without some effective safeguard. This should mean that in the future we shall see a more balanced economy on the farm, and also that the striking fall in arable cultivation, which has prominently featured in the discussion on this Bill, is likely to be stemmed, and consequently we shall have a greater production of home feeding stuffs. The National Farmers' Union, in the discussion which my right honourable friend had with them concerning the future policy of this industry, agreed that when this Bill was placed on the Statute Book there would not be one main commodity which had not got some measure to safeguard price levels from falling to extreme unremunerative levels.
Lord Hastings, in the course of his speech, which as usual was highly eloquent, suggested that this Bill was an instance of limitation of production. I would prefer to say that any limitation inserted in this Bill—the 27,000,000 sheep, the 2,500,000 acres placed as a ceiling for oat production, and the 18,000,000 cwt. for barley in Part II—are all limitations on the financial side. Therefore it is a limitation of aid, and not of production. If farmers are going to get the advantage that accrues to them by the ploughing-up campaign, which is in operation for this year, and for which they will get £2 an acre of subsidy, it does not mean that the provisions of this Bill will prevent them from benefiting the land or the fertility of the land. It simply means that some safeguard is placed on the finances of the Exchequer. Another point is that if there were undue expansion there might well be an increase in production in excess of demand, which would cause such a serious collapse of prices that the whole basis of price insurance found in this Bill would be in danger.
Lord Cranworth used the argument that under the provisions of Part I of the Bill, in respect of oats, there should not be a disability placed upon the farmer who grows wheat, and that he should receive assistance at the higher rate of subsidy. The noble Duke who sits on the Cross

449
Benches (the Duke of Buccleuch) and other of your Lordships who come from the North-East of Scotland, from the North of England and from parts of Wales and Northern Ireland will appreciate that there are large tracts of land in those areas where wheat cannot be grown; and members of your Lordships' House will know that assistance rendered to agriculture in the past has gone largely to the better lands, and the light land farmer has tended to switch over to wheat, in some instances where wheat should properly not be grown, at the expense of fertility and to the ultimate loss of the land itself. This Bill does essentially redress that balance. My noble friend Lord Cranworth said that too much lip service had been paid to the balance of the farm and of the farm economy. That may have been a justified criticism in the past, but it certainly is not a justified criticism in view of this Bill. Because this Bill, if it succeeds at all, must succeed in giving substantial help to the farmers on the light land, who are in the main dependent upon oats, barley and sheep.
The noble Lords, Lords Hastings and Lord Radnor, referred at some length to Clause 4, which deals with the control of cultivation. The noble Lords stressed the importance of securing that the provisions concerning negligent cultivation are adequately enforced, and, further, they suggested that the powers proposed may not be adequate to prevent that which has admittedly been occurring in the past.
LORD HASTINGS: May I add, that the personnel may not be adequate?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I was just coming to that. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned in particular the deterioration in the fertility of the land which arises from overcropping by white-straw crops, and he referred to the regrettable departure from the rotational practices which are generally regarded as synonymous with good farming. The crop reporters who are not, in the belief of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, well informed as to local conditions, are in the main surveyors, auctioneers and land agents, who in the course of their normal business come into contact with the local husbandry. It is correct to say that in the main the 300 crop reporters, who are part-time servants of the Ministry of Agriculture, are efficient. But the noble Lord,
450
Lord Hastings, doubts the value of any local person's implementation of the intentions of Clause 4.
If it be found that the crop reporters are not successfully undertaking the functions for which the Bill provides, it would be possible for my right honourable friend to increase the number of full-time employees of the Ministry of Agriculture. If it is found necessary there can be more land commissioners, and I believe that the noble Lord would not doubt the advantages that could be gained by the Land Commissioner himself undertaking this work in certain circumstances. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Government are fully alive to the great importance of this question, and it is our intention to intensify the inspection of the land even over and above what was done last year under the Agriculture Act.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who asked that a definite assurance should be given on this occasion, I am happy to give such an assurance, and to say that arrangements will be made for inspection of any holding for which an application for subsidy for barley and oats has been received, upon receipt of a complaint about negligent cultivation or the impairment of fertility from a landowner, his agent, or any other person with a definite interest in the holding, or indeed, as the noble Lord mentioned, from a representative agricultural organisation that may be concerned. Any such complaint might be made, either direct to the headquarters of the Ministry of Agriculture or, if it is preferred, it might be lodged with one of the Ministry's local officers, such as the land commissioner for the district. I hope that assurance, that if any landowner wishes to raise a complaint in respect of any one of the farmers with whom he is concerned his complaint will be dealt with, will satisfy the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Radnor, who have drawn attention to this important question.
The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, in dealing with the sheep provisions of this Bill, referred to the ceiling limitation of 27,000,000, and said that an increase of 200,000 over the existing population of 26,800,000 was totally insufficient, especially having regard to the campaign for improvement of grassland, and to the assistance given for the purchase of fertilisers. If the noble Lord will recall the slump in prices of sheep that occurred

451
during last year, he will observe that although the fall was acute in respect of the home-produced article, the price remained fairly firm for the imported article, both mutton and lamb. I think there can be no doubt therefore that one of our main objects under these proposals is to bring about a sustained and increasing demand for the home product which, it it is to occur, must entail bringing the commodity more or less into relation with the imported product for which the demand is ever-increasing. That means that the producers of this country must give more attention to the necessity of the production of a lighter sheep. At the same time we have endeavoured to take into consideration the important fact, as propounded by Lord Radnor and Lord Phillimore, that the fertility of the land in certain districts is dependent upon the folded sheep, and the Livestock Commission, who are authorised to prepare a scheme for submission to the Minister and for the approval of Parliament, will take both these factors into consideration in the standard weight proposals that they draw up. The governng consideration as regards the prosperity of the sheep industry in this country must be to place it on such a basis that the home producer can compete more efficiently and more successfully with the imported product. If he succeeds in doing that there is a fair chance for the price levels to go up in this country which, under the provisions of the Bill, would allow the ceiling figure of 27,000,000 to be increased.
I do not want to detain your Lordships at this hour, but I must refer to a further important matter raised by my noble friend Lord Hastings in respect of agricultural credit which is provided for under Clause 32. The noble Lord will realise that for a number of years the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has been in some considerable difficulty as the result of the fall in interest rates generally after the War Loan Conversion in 1932. The noble Lord will know that in order to encourage borrowing the Corporation reduced its rates on new loans to farmers from 5 per cent. to 4¼ per cent. in April, 1934. Under present conditions this would, if continued, oblige the Corporation to draw on its own reserves and involve it in a loss. The reserves, I understand, amount to £650,000. If I may correct the noble Lord, there is no question
452
of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation being wound up or going into liquidation. That is not a consideration which has been taken into account in framing Clause 32. The intention incorporated in that clause is not to change long-term credit policy. The policy is that loans should be available to new borrowers at the lowest possible commercial rate, but of course not below the commercial rate for business of a similar kind. The noble Lord has said that by this provision old borrowers who can convert at a 5 per cent. premium are not in fact going to be able to do so because they would not benefit for a period of fifteen years. I have been assured, since the noble Lord has spoken, that the period is about six years, but since the noble Lord is going to pursue the subject further, as he intimated in the course of his remarks, I will leave the detailed explanation of why it is only six and a half years and not fifteen years to a later stage. I hope that may be agreeable to my noble friend.
One cannot conclude a debate of this character, which deals with such a wide range of agricultural interest, without making some reference to the labour situation. Lord Addison said there was nothing in this Bill to help the agricultural worker. My noble friend Lord Hastings gave what was a very complete answer to Lord Addison. I should say that the problem of putting agriculture upon a stable and economic basis must necessarily be inseparable, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, remarked, from the question of bringing the standard of living of agricultural workers into line with the standard enjoyed by workers in urban industries. The Government have these questions in mind, and it is neither a fair nor a just criticism to say, because there is no specific reference to the remuneration to be received by the agricultural worker, that that important matter is not taken into account.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I hope the noble Earl does not think I made that criticism.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Oh, no; it was Lord Addison who made that criticism. As Lord Hastings inferred, the Government's view of the proper approach is to raise the wage-earning capacity of agriculture, and this they have been

453
trying to do not only by this measure but by a number of measures over the last few years. Personally, I shall not be satisfied until I see the labour wage for agriculture and conditions in agriculture at least on an equal basis to those enjoyed in other industries. It is not going to be done merely by increasing the minimum wage as directed by the Agricultural Wages Board. Noble Lords to-day have had in mind such amenity and social questions as housing, the provision of electricity, the provision of water, and the educational facilities which are open to children of agricultural employees. These are considerations which have a far-reaching effect and much has been done recently to improve housing conditions and to improve the social and amenity facilities of rural areas.
The basis provided in this Bill of increasing the returns to the farmer will, I trust, enable him to pay higher remuneration to his servants. When there is such a great and serious scarcity of farm labour in many parts of the country it does not stand to reason that the farmer should continue to pay at a rate which now averages only 34s. 9d. if he could afford to pay a higher rate. That is a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, said, that is far from being solved at the present time. It is one that does not affect this country alone, but is an acute problem in all countries throughout the world. If agriculture is going to be completely rehabilitated, if it is to be placed in the position we all desire to see it in, it must have the full and continued attention of authorities, both central and local. I am conscious that I have by no means covered some of the important points that have been raised in the course of this discussion, but I hope there may be occasion at some later date to go more fully into the issues that your Lordships have been good enough to raise on this occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (TRANSFER OF POWERS) (No. 1) ORDER, 1939.
7.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE (LORD CHATFIELD): My Lords, I move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved. This Order in Council is required in order to transfer to the Minister of Supply certain powers of other Departments that he is required to exercise. It is the first Order in Council to be made under Section 3 of the Ministry of Supply Act and under Section 6 it has to be presented for the affirmative approval of Parliament before presentation to His Majesty. I do not think it is necessary for me to explain the various paragraphs of this Order in Council, but I shall be glad as far as I can to answer any questions which your Lordships may wish to ask. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Chatfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Joint Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table and to be delivered out: Bill reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended.