Sitting of 22 May 1930

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Kidderminster and Llanelly) Bill.
Bills to be read a second time Tomorrow.
Tees Valley Water Bill (Certified Bill).
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.
Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH MOLTON RURAL) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to South Molton Rural District," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GREAT TORRINGTON, MINEHEAD, AND TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BOARD) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Great Torrington, Minehead, and the Taf Fechan Water Supply Board," presented
  544
  by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BOROUGH.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons signing at the Borough Employment Exchange for the six months ended to the last convenient date have been found employment through the medium of that Exchange; and can she state the number of persons who have been disallowed benefit through the same period for any reasons?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): During the period 12th November, 1929, to 12th May, 1930, 9,570 persons on the registers of the Borough Employment Exchange were placed in employment by that Exchange. During the same period 2,282 applications for benefit made at that Exchange were disallowed.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Lady say whether statistics are available with reference to the grounds for disallowance?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

    RELIEF SCHEME, SHEFFIELD.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Labour whether municipalities receiving unemployment grants are allowed to discriminate between union and non-union labour?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply on this matter given on Monday last to the hon. Member for the Hallam Division (Mr. L. Smith).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Lady say whether a copy of the instructions to which she refers is in possession of the Sheffield Corporation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I think they are aware of them.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Lady say how the present matter in dispute is getting on, in view of the instructions she sent?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not the fact that a large number of these people are taken from the Employment Exchange registers?

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour the number and names of the training centres now under the Ministry's control; the capacity available; and the number of persons now being trained thereat?

    —

    Date to which information relates.

    Capacity.

    Number in training.

    1. Men

    Government Training Centres

    …

    …

    16th May, 1930

    …

    …

    3,400

    3,046

    Transfer Instructional Centres

    …

    13th May, 1930

    …

    …

    1,200

    1,145

    Overseas Training Centres*

    …

    …

    16th May, 1930

    …

    …

    1,220

    299

    2. Women.

    Home Training Centres

    …

    …

    …

    10th May, 1930

    …

    …

    912

    812

    Overseas Hostels

    …

    …

    …

    …

    30th April, 1930

    …

    109

    86

    * The majority of the men trained at these Centres during the present season have already sailed overseas, and the Centres are being converted temporarily for the provision of courses of instruction with a view to employment in this country.

    Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour what changes, if any, are contemplated at the training centres under the Ministry's control; and whether the question of acquiring undeveloped or water-slain land in areas adjacent to the centres will be considered, with a view to providing more employment and also increasing the production of home-grown food?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No changes are at present contemplated, except as stated in my reply of 8th. May to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Hunter), of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. As regards the second part of the question, I should point out that the object of the centres is to train for employment elsewhere, and not to provide employment or establish a source of production at the centres themselves; land can therefore be acquired only so far as it is required for training purposes, although, of course, it is usually improved by the work done on it.
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply involves a tabular statement I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    For the answer to the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for High Peak (Sir A. Law) on 6th March, 1930.
    Apart from the provision for training juveniles, the capacity of training centres administered or financially assisted by the Ministry of Labour, and the number of trainees in training at a recent date at the various types of centres are shown in the following table:
    Mr. TOUTasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons accepted at the various unemployment training centres for training in the three branches of vehicle building, bodymaking, painting, and trimming, from the inauguration of the scheme to the last available date; how many of these have been placed in employment and with what success; and the number at present in training in the three branches mentioned?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Figures are not available with regard to the numbers accepted for particular branches of training. Since the inauguration of the training scheme, rather more than 800 men have undergone a course of instruction in one or other of the three branches of the trade to which my hon. Friend refers, and of them 767 have been placed in employment, in most cases in one of these branches. The number in training in the trade on 13th May, 1930, at all centres was 269.

    VACANCIES.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Labour whether, in tier endeavour to develop the placing work of the exchanges, she will adhere to the principle of submitting the most suitable persons for the jobs offering?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, Sir.

    MANCHESTER AND SALFORD.
    Sir ALFRED LAWasked the Minister of Labour if she will give in round figures the number of persons on the unemployed list in the Manchester and Salford areas for the week ending 10th May, 1930, and for the comparable week of 1929?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 12th May, 1930, there were 62,645 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Manchester and Salford areas as compared with 36,339 at 13th May, 1929.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask how long these cases are going on?

    CAMBERWELL.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons in Camberwell on 1st May, 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 5th May, 1930, there were 6,309 persons residing in the Metropolitan borough of Camberwell on the registers of Employment Exchanges, as compared with 3,940 at 6th May, 1929, and with 3,446 at 7th May, 1928.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the Minister of Labour aware that this is one of the districts to which labour has been transferred, and, in view of the figures, will she stop transference to this area?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The question of the unemployment figures in an area recognised as a transferable area is being watched.

    LACE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of insured persons registered in the lace industry as at the end of June, 1924, 1925 and 1929, respectively; the number of persons unemployed at the same dates; and the number of persons actually at work at the same dates?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. REMER: As there are only six possible figures, cannot the right hon. Lady give them?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will certainly read them.
    The following table shows the estimated numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the lace industry in Great Britain, the numbers of such persons recorded as unemployed, and the differences between these figures. The figures in column (4) include persons who were sick or for other reasons not actually at work, though not recorded as unemployed.

    End of

    Estimated numbers insured.

    Numbers unemployed.

    Differences.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    June, 1924

    19,380

    3,600

    15,780

    June, 1925

    18,540

    3,220

    15,320

    June, 1929

    16,920

    1,655

    15,265

    Mr. REMER: As these figures are quite different to those quoted by the President of the Board of Trade on 14th May, will the right hon. Lady pass them on so that they can be given accurately by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not these figures show that the vaunted advantages of Safeguarding are illusory?
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Labour whether she can state the number of workpeople registered as employed in the lace industry aged 65 and over at the end of June, 1925; the number of workpeople registered as employed in the lace industry who have attained the age of 65 years during the period June, 1925, to the end of June, 1929, and who, in consequence thereof, are no longer registered as engaged in the industry; and the number of work-people engaged in the lace industry aged 65 and over at the end of June, 1929?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It is estimated that at the end of June, 1923, there were about 960 insured persons aged 65 and over classified as belonging to the lace industry. I regret that similar statistics

    549
    in respect of June, 1929, and statistics of the numbers who reached 65 during the intervening period are not available.
    Sir B. PETO: Can the right hon. Lady say why these statistics are available in the Ministry for an earlier date, but are not available for the present date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Because prior to the new Act it was necessary to keep these statistics. After the other pensions they were no longer required.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if she is now prepared to circularise again local employment committees urging that they should give full consideration to the report of the committee appointed in 1923 on the conditions of domestic service, with a view to forming associations of employers and employés to agree upon conditions in their areas?
    Miss BONDFIELD: These proposals have received my careful consideration and I do not think a circular on these lines would be likely to lead to useful results, but I am considering whether there is any action that can be taken.
    Mr. WEST: Is the Department taking any steps to advise young girls who go into domestic employment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The Exchanges are very anxious to advise young girls going into domestic service, and may I take this opportunity of saying that I hope girls who are thinking of entering into domestic service will use the services of the Employment Exchanges instead of coming up to London on their own.
    Mr. ALPASS: Is there anyone connected with the Department whose duty it is to see that the conditions of employment in domestic service are fair and reasonable?
    Miss BONDFIELD: When the girls pass through the Employment Exchanges we are able to have a certain check, but otherwise we have no check at all.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons on the live register on 1st April, 1929, and 1st April 1930, respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 31st March, 1930, there were 1,677,473 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain as compared with 1,178,067 at 8th April, 1929.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Minister of Labour what is the approximate number of persons by which the live register has been increased owing to the recent Unemployment Insurance Act?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It is estimated that at 12th May, 1930, the numbers on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain included approximately 60,000 persons who had been added through the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the Minister expect that the number will remain at about that figure?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, I anticipate an increase.

    PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.
    Mr. MOSESasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons registered at the Plymouth and Devonport Employment Exchanges for the week ended 10th May, 1930, and for the corresponding period of last year; and the number brought back on the register consequent on the Act of 1929?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 12th May, 1930, there were 4,756 persons on the registers of the Employment Exchange at Plymouth and 2,204 at Devonport, as compared with 4,072 at Plymouth and 1,724 at Devonport at 13th May, 1929. The estimated numbers of persons on the registers at 12th May, 1930, due to the operation of the new Unemployment Insurance Act, were 60 at Plymouth and 40 at Devonport.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister tells us in what trades these people are employed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I should require notice of that question.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Sir HENRY BETTERTONasked the Minister of Labour the amount by which the deficit on the Unemployment Insurance Fund has increased during each of the last four weeks, after making allowance in each case for accrued interest?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The debt of the Unemployment Fund during each of the four weeks in question increased as follows:

    £

    Week ended 3rd May

    380,000

    Week ended 10th May

    470,000

    Week ended 17th May

    600,000

    Week ended 24th May

    110,000

    About £38,000 should be added in each case for accrued interest. The amounts borrowed on 17th and 24th May were affected by necessary inter-Departmental adjustments; these made the amount on 17th May larger and that on 24th May smaller than they would otherwise have been.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At the present rate of progress, how long does the Minister anticipate that it will be before the limit of the borrowing powers is reached?
    Miss BONDFIELD: There is another question on that subject.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (for Sir ASSHETON POWNALL)asked the Minister of Labour what is the debt of the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and by what date the borrowing powers will be exhausted if the unemployment figure remains at the same level as that shown in the last published figures?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The debt of the Unemployment Fund on 17th May, 1930, was £41,760,000. If the unemployment figure were to remain at 1,739,500, the last published figure, it is probable that the borrowing powers would be exhausted sometime in October.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the right hon. Lady say if the figure is likely to remain at 1,729,500?

    COURTS OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of workers' representatives who have acted as members of the courts of referees since the new Act came into operation to the latest available date at the Bridgeton Employment Exchange, Glasgow; the number of times each of them has been summoned to act as a member of the court and the number of claims at the Bridgeton Exchange, Glasgow, which have been decided by incomplete courts of referees consisting
    552
    of one and two persons, respectively, since the coming into operation of the new Act to the latest available date; the number of claims which have been refused; and the number refused without the applicant being given the right of appeal to the Umpire?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have already furnished this information to my hon. Friend in my letter of 20th May.
    Mr. STEPHEN: While thanking the Minister for sending me the letter to which she refers, may I ask, arising out of the answer which she sent to me, does she realise that there is great dissatisfaction in Glasgow owing to these one-man courts, and will she take steps to give these people an opportunity of having their cases re-heard?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have repeatedly urged that those who are assessors on the courts of referees should take their duties very seriously and should attend the courts. I think it is entirely optional for the insured person to wait for a full court, and I do not wish to interfere with that option; but I would urge very strongly, and anyone who has influence with the assessors should urge on them very strongly to attend the courts regularly.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister aware that when applicants have asked for a full court they have been informed that their case will be put off for a fairly long time, and that pressure has been brought to bear on them at the Exchanges to take incomplete courts?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the House to be allowed to have the information which, I gather, was conveyed to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) by letter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly. I only gave it in that form to the hon. Member because it was a local matter.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Would it not be desirable that we should have that information, because we are anxious to know about the number of these assessors and whether they are always summoned to the court?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly. The information will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The number of representatives of insured contributors on the panel of Bridgeton Court of Referees is 34. During the period 13th March to 8th May they were all summoned to attend sittings of the court; four of them on five occasions, 14 on four occasions, 11 on three occasions, four on two occasions and one on one occasion only. The four members who were summoned twice only had asked to be summoned as rarely as possible, and the member who was summoned once only was known to be available only to a limited extent. Of the 34 panel members, 26 attended sittings of the courts on one or more occasions.
    During the same period the number of claims heard by incomplete courts consisting of one and two persons were 697 and 1,093 respectively. Of these 1,565 were disallowed, leave to appeal to the Umpire not being granted in 1,552 cases.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the names of the workers' representatives on the court of referees at Bridgeton Employment Exchange, Glasgow, and the nominating body for each of the representatives named?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am obtaining the information desired and I will let my hon. Friend have it as soon as possible.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask the Minister to expedite these inquiries, because I have found that there is a fair amount of delay on these matters, and I would like to get this information as quickly as possible?
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that the courts of referees in Glasgow gave decisions in Glasgow contrary to the decisions given by the umpire before the umpire's decisions were known; if any steps have been taken to review the decisions so given; and, seeing that ever since the decisions were so given the referees are not operating them, if she proposes to take steps to deal with the situation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware that certain claims decided by courts of referees in Glasgow may require review
    554
    in the light of umpire's decisions subsequently issued. The necessary action is being taken to identify such claims and to refer them again to the court of referees where necessary. As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware that the courts are failing to give effect to the umpire's decisions.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in Glasgow a large number of these decisions were given prior to the umpire's decisions being known; and is she taking steps to see that all these cases are reviewed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I said so in my answer.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that at the Glasgow South Side Exchange the chairman of the court of referees signed a letter to various applicants for unemployment benefit stating to them that their claim bad been decided on another case, and that as a result their claim to benefit could not be granted; that this letter was in direct conflict with the recent Act; and what steps, if any, she has taken in the matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This matter was brought to my notice at the beginning of April. As my hon. Friend knows, it was immediately corrected and each claimant concerned was given the opportunity to have a personal hearing.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that, in view of the illegal action taken by the chairman of this court of referees to deprive claimants of benefit, no applicant has confidence in him; and would it not be better for everybody concerned if this chairman mere now changed?
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Is it not the rule that every case should be decided on its individual merits?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is the whole point. A mistake was made by the chairman of the court of referees. That mistake has been rectified, and every individual claimant specially notified that they have that right. In the transfer over from one system to the other, I venture to say that there has been very little confusion of this kind. That is rather a matter for congratulation than otherwise.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask for an answer to my supplementary question, whether, in view of the deliberate illegal action of the chairman of the court of referees in sending a letter to deprive these people of their benefit, it would not be better in the interests of all concerned, if a change were made?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I must take exception to the term "deliberate illegal action."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Then, in view of the action taken, which has created lack of confidence, would it not be better for everybody, as he has little knowledge of the new Act, if he were changed?
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that, throughout the Glasgow and West of Scotland Exchanges, large number of applicants and persons who appear with them are dissatisfied at the treatment they receive at the hands of the chairman of the court of referees, particularly where he is alone present, and that the number of persons refused under condition (b) is greater than in other districts in England; and if she proposes taking any steps to alter the situation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am aware that the proportion of disallowances on the ground referred to, as also of the total number of new claims, was relatively higher in Glasgow than in the country as a whole, but I have no power to interfere with the machinery of decision as prescribed by the Acts.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does this not prove that the question I raised earlier is substantially true, that the chairmen of the courts of referees in Glasgow are harsher and more vindictive and have less cognisance of the Acts of Parliament than in any other part of the country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Day.
    Mr. BUCHANAN rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot take up so much time during Questions.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely I am entitled to ask a supplementary question whether the right hon. Lady has no power to stop this, and see that these poor people are as decently treated as she would desire? It is shocking that this should go on.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Day.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for unemployment benefit of men and women, respectively, which have been refused on the not normally in insurable employment ground since the new Act came into operation to the nearest available date, and the corresponding figures for the preceding two years?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Owing to the changes made by the new Act, the numbers of disallowances under this and certain other heads, taken by themselves, are not properly comparable with those for earlier periods. I am therefore circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the disallowances under each head for the period 13th March to 14th April, 1930, and averages for earlier periods going back to April, 1928. I should point out that the figures under the new Act, relating as they do to the first month of its operation, cannot safely be taken to be typical of its effect over a longer period.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Minister, in the table which is being circulated, show definite comparisons in regard to the "not normally in insurable employment" condition, because there is nothing in the Act which has changed that condition?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The difficulty about this matter is that a great many of these cases under the old Act were merely dismissed on the ground of "not genuinely seeking work." The actual details in each case are under consideration, and, therefore, as I have pointed out, there is really no comparison.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does the Minister not realise that such applications previously were dismissed on the ground of "not genuinely seeking work" and that if the "not normally in insurable employment" condition is simply going to be used in place of the "not genuinely seeking work" condition which was abolished by this House, it is simply playing fast and loose with the decision of the House of Commons?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The hon. Member has drawn an inference which has no basis in fact.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that the "not normally in insurable employment" condition is the same as it was in the old Act; and why then should the Minister say there cannot be a comparison of these figures?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will try to make the position as clear as I can. A very large number of claims were disallowed before on both the "not normally in insurable employment" condition and the "not genuinely seeking work" condi-

    DISALLOWANCES OF CLAIMS TO BENEFIT.

    Comparative Statement, April, 1928, to April, 1930.

    —

    Disallowances by Insurance Officers.

    Disallowances by Courts of Referees (U.I. Act, 1930), 13th March, 1930, to 14th April, 1930.

    Monthly Averages.

    April, 1928-March, 1929.

    April, 1929-March, 1930.

    Permanent Provisions.

    First statutory condition

    …

    …

    …

    432

    323

    165

    Not unable to obtain suitable employment

    …

    2,837

    3,394

    —

    Failure or refusal to apply for or accept suitable employment and failure to carry out written directions.

    —

    —

    2,264

    Trade disputes

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,265

    5,602

    21 (by Ins. Officer).

    Employment lost through misconduct

    …

    …

    4,227

    4,739

    3,534

    Employment left voluntarily without just cause

    6,142

    8,317

    5,804

    Other grounds

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,099

    2,695

    5,064*

    Not genuinely seeking work

    …

    …

    …

    26,343

    20,209

    Not operative.

    Transitional provisions (Sec. 14 (2) U.I. Act, 1927).

    Less than 8 contributions paid in previous two years or 30 contributions paid at any time.

    223

    264

    1,953

    Nor normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.

    1,622

    9,386

    20,030

    Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years.

    11,935

    Not operative.

    Total claims disallowed

    …

    …

    …

    …

    57,125

    54,929

    38,835

    GERMANY AND UNITED STATES.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (for Sir A. POWNALL)asked the Minister of Labour if she has any information as to the amount of unemployment now existing in Germany and the United States of America?
    tion; but the "not genuinely seeking work" condition has disappeared and is not in operation at all, while the "not normally in insurable employment" condition remains as one of the statutory conditions.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory position in which this matter has been left, I shall take the first opportunity of raising the question on the Adjournment.
    Following is the table:
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is somewhat long, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Information with regard to these and other countries is given on page 183 of the current issue of the Ministry of

    559
    Labour Gazette. In Germany at the end of March the number of workpeople registered at the Employment Exchanges as unemployed was reported to be approximately 3,041,000. Among the members of trade unions nearly 22 per cent. were totally unemployed at that time and in addition over 12½ per cent. were working short time.
    Statistics of unemployment are not compiled officially in the United States. The American Federation of Labour report that, according to returns received from trade unions in a number of cities, 21 per cent. of the membership were unemployed at the beginning of March, 1930. In the building trades the proportion unemployed is given as 42 per cent., in the printing trade 6 per cent., in the metal trades 19 per cent., and in all other trades 12 per cent. In view of the relatively small number of work-people covered it is doubtful how far the percentages shown may be relied upon as a measure of unemployment generally in that country. The official index of employment in manufacturing industries in the United States stood at 89.8 in March, 1930, as compared with a monthly average of 100 for 1926. The index has shown a decline of nearly 9 per cent. since March, 1929.

  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether the negotiations with regard to a Bill giving force of law to the decisions of joint industrial councils in certain circumstances have now been concluded; and whether it is the hope of the Government at an early date to introduce agreed legislation on the subject?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I understand that certain discussions are taking place on this subject, but I have not been informed that any conclusion has been reached.
  Mr. MANDER: Are the Government taking any part in these negotiations and trying to encourage and stimulate them?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The discussions are taking place without the intervention of the Government.
  Mr. MANDER: Would it not be a real help if for once in a way the Ministry
  560
  of Labour were to initiate and encourage the excellent negotiations which are going on?
  Miss BONDFIELD: On the contrary.
  Mr. DUKES: May I ask with whom these negotiations are taking place?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Between the parties concerned.

  WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Labour in what respects the demands of the employers in the wool textile dispute go beyond the recommendations of the court of inquiry?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I do not think that this is a matter upon which, in the present circumstances, I ought to make any statement.
  Mr. ALBERY: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the fact that the Government official organ has already made a definite statement which, if inaccurate, should be contradicted?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I did not quite follow the hon. Member's supplementary question.
  Mr. ALBERY: I am asking whether the right hon. Lady is aware that the "Daily Herald" has made a definite statement on this subject, which, if inaccurate, should be contradicted?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am not responsible for the statement.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the employers' refusal to meet the workmen at the request of the Department, does the right hon. Lady intend to take any further steps in this dispute?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I must ask to be allowed to make no further statement at the moment.
  Mr. MUFF(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, considering the disastrous effect upon the community resulting from the Yorkshire Textile Dispute, the Prime Minister would consider the advisability of inviting representatives of the varying parties in the dispute to meet under his chairmanship, with a view to arriving at an amicable settlement of the dispute.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been recently in communication with the representatives of employers and workers concerned in this deplorable dispute, and I understand that an officer of her Department is in Yorkshire to-day, and is discussing the position with the leaders on the spot. Before expressing an opinion, I should like that this officer should have an opportunity of reporting.

  CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW.
  Sir H. NIELDasked the Minister of Labour if the Report of the inspector who made a survey of the work and the methods in connection therewith of the Claims and Record Office, Kew, in 1929 can now be published?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I presume the hon. Member refers to a report made by an officer of the Services and Establishments Department of the Ministry in the course of the ordinary duties of that Department. It would be quite contrary to practice to publish such reports, large numbers of which are made every year with regard to the various branches of the Ministry.
  Sir H. NIELDasked the Minister of Labour the total number of staff employed at the Claims and Record Office, Kew, on 1st April, 1929, and 1st April, 1930, respectively?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The staff of the Claims and Record Office on the 1st April, 1929, numbered 2,714; on the 1st April, 1930, the number was 2,472. At each date there was in addition a cleaning staff of 64.

  MOTORING OFFENCES.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total amount of fines imposed upon motorists for all offences under the Motor Car Acts for the six months ended to the last convenient date; and the number of these prosecutions and fines imposed that were for exceeding the speed limit, giving the figures separately for the Metropolis?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The latest figures available for England and Wales relate to all motoring offences and to the whole year ended 31st December, 1929. The total amount of fines was £201,315. For exceeding the speed limit 18,724 offences resulted in fines amounting to 237,996; in the Metropolitan Police District and the City, 6,337 offences and fines of £13,965.
  Mr. DAY: Has there been an increased activity in the Metropolis during the last six months, and is there any rule as to the speed for which motorists are prosecuted?
  Mr. SHORT: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

  INDIA.

    COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the issue of the "Daily Worker," dated 14th May, containing a manifesto of the Communist party of Great Britain, headed "Long live Indian Independence," and which refers to the present Government as a hangman's government and demands the withdrawal of all British troops from India; and whether, in view of the effect of these statements if transmitted to India, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has seen the issue in question. He is not at present in a position to say what action, if any, may be called for.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question arises out of a similar question which was put at least 10 days ago to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that on that occasion the Under-Secretary stated, in effect, that the matter was under the consideration of the Government; and does his right hon. Friend not think that it is high time the House was taken into his confidence as to what the Government intend to do in this matter?
    Mr. SHORT: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will do that as soon as he has reached a conclusion.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that

    563
    the situation in India is going from bad to worse, and that it is up to the Government here to put a stop to this propaganda?
    Mr. WELLS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the "Star," a Hindu paper at Allahabad, has already called attention to the fact that no action has been taken by the Government?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Am I to understand that a newspaper in this country is not to be allowed to publish a statement of an organisation demanding India's independence?

    PRISONERS.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for India how many Indians known to be adherents of the Nationalist movement are now in prison?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Benn): I have no information from which an answer can be furnished.
    Mr. BECKETT: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that he has no information as to how many prisoners there are?
    Mr. BENN: I could give my hon. Friend the total number of persons who for various reasons are in prison, but, if he asks me for their political opinions, all I can say is that I have not the information.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it not the fact that there are more political offenders in Indian prisons now than at any time since the Mutiny?

    FLOGGING.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for India whether any flogging has been inflicted during the recent disturbances in India; if so, how many persons have been flogged; and under what authority this punishment has been given?
    Mr. BENN: I know of no case save that of four juveniles at Sholapur.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to deal with the false rumours that are being spread, and are doing a great deal of harm?
    Mr. BENN: I have given to the House of Commons, at every opportunity, the fullest information in my possession, and that is the best that I can do.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these statements—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice has been given that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment.

  VIVISECTION.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary whether the 13,040 experiments recorded in the Home Office Return of Experiments on Living Animals for 1928 as having been performed by J. G. Everett were all covered by one licence and one Certificate A; and, if so, the date of issue of that certificate?
  Mr. SHORT: There appears to be some mistake in the question. The experiments recorded as performed in 1928 numbered 9,255. They were all done under one licence and certificate A, and the certificate was given in April, 1925.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Is there no limit to the number of experiments on living animals which can be carried on under one certificate?
  Mr. SHORT: I should require notice of that question.

  CALCUTTA SWEEPSTAKE.
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he or his advisers have arrived at any decision with reference to the sale or purchase of numbers of tickets for the Calcutta sweepstake on the Derby; and can he make a statement thereon?
  Mr. SHORT: If definite facts pointing to the commission of offences in this country are brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, he will consider what action is possible and called for. He has no other statement to make.
  Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the purchaser of these numbers, as well as the seller, is liable?
  Mr. ALBERY: In any case, is it possible to take any action at all concerning the sale of numbers of tickets?
  Mr. SHORT: If the hon. Member will give me some definite information, we will consider it.
  Mr. DAY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this matter is of such importance—the question has been on the Order Paper three times—for a definite statement to be made?

  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

    ANTHRAX.
    Mr. DUKESasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been directed to the following fatal cases of anthrax in the Liverpool, Runcorn and Warrington district: Walter Pritchard, 16, Ellesmere Street, Warrington, January, 1920; William Ronald Williamson, Runcorn, February, 1929; Thomas Burden, July, 1929; Ernest Hindley, Runcorn, March, 1930; Richard Andrews, 35, Fothergill Street, Warrington, 12th April, 1930; and Mary Dawbarn, 3, Glazebrook Street, Warrington, 20th April, 1930; and whether, in view of the frequency of these cases, he will set up a committee of inquiry with a view to having this disease treated more expeditiously than at present?
    Mr. SHORT: As the answer is a long one, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Have the local authorities succeeded in tracing the source of these cases of anthrax?
    Mr. SHORT: The hon. and gallant Member had better read the very long answer, and, if he wants further information, it will be supplied.
    Mr. DUKES: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to a statement made by Dr. Hodgson, of Fazackerley Hospital, in which he states definitely—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information and not asking a question.
    Following is the answer:
    The cases mentioned in the question were all reported to the Factory Depart-
    566
    ment and carefully examined, and my right hon. Friend is advised that, while in some of them the seriousness of the case may have been aggravated by some delay in recognising the disease, treatment was given without delay in every case as soon as it was recognised to be anthrax.
    It is, of course, most important that cases of anthrax should be recognised as well as treated without delay, and various steps have been taken by the Factory Department from time to time with this object. For example, a large placard indicating symptoms and precautions and the urgency of medical examination where infection is suspected has been prescribed for exhibition at the places of work; and a small card on similar lines is now being prepared, which the workman can keep by him and show to the doctor or hospital authorities, to indicate that his employment involves risk of anthrax. Further, special steps have recently been taken as regards the tanning industry in which my right hon. Friend understands all but one of the cases referred to in the question occurred. The Senior Medical Inspector recently addressed a circular to the hospitals in districts where cases have occurred drawing attention to the risk among persons handling hides and skins, and the importance of being on the look-out for possible cases among patients presenting themselves at the institution. Again, in a recent Home Office circular to tannery occupiers the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment was specially mentioned, and they were urged to review their arrangements for securing this and to get into touch with local hospitals where necessary.
    My right hon. Friend does not think that the appointment of a committee of inquiry would be likely to carry matters any further, but the subject will continue to receive close attention, and if my hon. Friend has any particular suggestion to make my right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider it.

    ANTHRACOSIS.
    Dr. J. H. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary (1) whether his Department has published reports of cases of anthracosis; and whether a list of persons declared to have suffered from this complaint is available at the Home Office;

    567
    (2) whether he has any evidence that anthracosis is due to special conditions obtaining in the anthracite coalfield; and whether he is prepared to include it in the list of occupational diseases which can be scheduled for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act?
    Mr. SHORT: The reply to both parts of the first question is in the negative. The investigation of the effects of coal dust on the lungs has been referred to the Expert Committee on the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases, which was recently set up at my right hon. Friend's request by the Medical Research Council, but it has yet to be established that the condition of the lungs described as anthracosis is the cause of disablement, and meanwhile it would not be possible to bring it within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am advised that there is some evidence of special changes in the lungs due to the conditions in the anthracite coalfield, but this is a point which will need further investigation.

  RUSSIA.

    PROPAGANDA.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from Scotland Yard on the result of their investigations into the recent sworn statement of M. Sava Popovitch, the Serbian artist, on the activities of Soviet secret agents in London; and whether any other action has been taken?
    Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has received a report on the matter; but at the present stage he thinks it would be undesirable to say anything further.

    BRITISH DEBT.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum is now due from the Government of Russia to that of Great Britain in capital and accumulated interest; whether he has received any offer from the Soviet Government or has made any suggestion to it regarding the funding of this debt; and what is the annual sum now paid by the British taxpayer in interest on this loan?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The sum due by the Government of Russia to
    568
    this country as on 31st March last amounts to £900,000,000; up to the present no suggestion has been received from the Soviet Government in regard to the funding of this debt, but it will be among the questions to be discussed in the negotiations with the Soviet Government which are to take place shortly; the money lent to Russia during the War was borrowed by His Majesty's Government at over 5 per cent. interest, and the annual sum now paid by the British taxpayer for interest thereon accordingly amounts to over £45,000,000.
    Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his great persuasiveness to try, if possible, to get some relief for the British taxpayer in the negotiations which are going on?
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the amount stated includes the money owed to this country prior to the revolution of March, 1917?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It includes all the Russian Government debts.

  EDUCATION.

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in relation to the Government grants in connection with maintenance allowances for children affected by the raising of the school age, he intends to make an additional grant in respect of the necessitous areas?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): No, Sir.

    NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the proposals contained in the White Paper (Cmd. 3551), relating to the conditions in which grants are to be made to non-provided schools, have received the assent and approval of the bodies representing the managers of such schools?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The White Paper referred to makes it clear that the proposals therein resulted from a series of friendly and helpful conversations which I had with the interests concerned, but that none of those interests is committed to the proposals.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it proposed to come to, and publish, any definite agreement with the interests, or may we take it that the opposition has largely passed away?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The proposal will be embodied in a Bill which will be circulated to-morrow.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Is it a fact that the owners of the Roman Catholic School are entirely opposed to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, that is not true.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my question. I realise that the proposals are coming in the form of a Bill, but what I asked was whether the opposition still exists?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member has as much ability to discover that as I have. [interruption.] It is perfectly well known that there is some opposition in some churches, but there is no entire opposition in any.

    STAFFING.
    Sir JOHN WITHERSasked the President of the Board of Education how many additional teachers of practical subjects, such as physical training, woodwork, and domestic science, are being trained in view of the proposed raising of the school-leaving age; whether any of these and, if so, how many are included in the 1,100 additional teachers already being trained; and at what dates will these teachers of practical subjects have completed their training?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The number of students in Training Colleges for Domestic Subjects this year exceeds last, year's number by 80. The additional students who entered the Colleges in 1929 will complete their training in 1931 or 1932. It is not possible to give separate figures for teachers of woodwork, as this is an optional subject, included in the curriculum of a number of ordinary Training Colleges, and it is not yet known how many students will offer the subject in their final examination. Physical training is included in the course of every ordinary student at a two-year Training College.
    Sir J. WITHERS (for Duchess of ATHOLL)asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the names of the 180 local education authorities who have sent in programmes containing estimates of the numbers of additional teachers required in the event of the raising of the school-leaving age as from April, 1931?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I shall be glad to send the Noble Lady the names of the 180 Authorities for which she asks.
    Sir J. WITHERS (for Duchess of ATHOLL)asked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers additional to the present, average annual output of teachers for public elementary schools are to begin a two years' course in the training colleges in September next?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The average annual output of teachers following two-year training courses for the last four years has been about 5,700; about 6,460 students entered on such courses in 1929, and about 6,200 are expected to enter in 1930. The result of the large additional entry of two-year students in 1929 has, of course, been to reduce the number of additional vacancies available in 1930.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between the number of males and females?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid I have not that information.
    Sir J. WITHERS (for Duchess of ATHOLL)asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the programmes of 180 out of a total of 318 local education authorities show an anticipated need of 8,504 additional teachers in 1932 in the event of the raising of the school-leaving age as from 1st April, 1931, he has revised his estimate that the total number of teachers required from 1938 onwards is not more than 7,500?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not think there is any reason to revise the estimate I have given of the additional teachers likely to be required on account of the raising of the school age in the year 1938, when the number of children in the additional age-group will have become more or less stabilised. The figure of 8,504 is not comparable, since

    571
    it relates to a year when there will be more children in the schools and covers normal expansion as well as the raising of the school-leaving age.

    REORGANISATION SCHEMES.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have prepared schemes in preparation for the raising of the school age and how many authorities have made no preparation therefor, up to the latest available date?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: 261 authorities have submitted programmes, of which 225 are complete, and 36 are partial or preliminary. Most of these programmes make provision for the situation which will result from the raising of the school-leaving age. I am not able to say how many of the remaining 56 authorities are or are not making preparations, but a large number are doing so.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say what number of authorities there are who will be in a position to provide the necessary school buildings?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think there is no doubt that there will be room for the increased population.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Is it not a fact that many local authorities do not pretend to be able to complete the work necessary until 1936?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: That depends upon what "necessary" means. What I said was that there would be room for the increased population.
    Lord E. PERCY: In other words, there may be great overcrowding but there will be room!
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I shall give a good deal more detailed information when the Bill is brought in, but it is not the case that one need expect there will be great overcrowding. There will be a very great many authorities with their buildings ready, and there will be others—as there always would be others, whatever the date—who will not be ready.
    Lord E. PERCY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of one major urban authority which will be ready by March next year?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will give plenty of names when the Bill is discussed.
    Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately on what date the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: That is a question concerned with the Business of the House.

  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (HEALTH INSURANCE PRESCRIPTIONS).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he is taking any action with regard to the deputation he recently received from the central board of the Co-operative Union, complaining of the prohibition of payment of co-operative dividends on national health insurance prescriptions?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The deputation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has not yet been received, but I hope to arrange to see them shortly.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman try on that occasion to clear up all his differences with the Co-operative Union?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall be glad if I can have the right hon. Gentleman's help.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself help by keeping his pledges on the matter?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly.

  HOUSING.

    RENTS, PAIGNTON.
    Mr. MOSESasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the rents of 147 Addison houses at Paignton, reduced by 1s. per wek in 1922, were again raised by that amount in April 1929; has he received any request for their reduction from the Paignton Urban District Council; and will he now state what his intentions are regarding this increase.?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The urban district council have applied for permission to reduce the rents

    573
    by 1s. a week, but I regret that after full consideration of the matter I am unable to accede to their request.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how much lower those rents are than under the 1924 Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no information about that matter, but, if the local authority are aggrieved, there can be an appeal to the rents tribunal.

    SUBSIDIES.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health the capital value of the Exchequer subsidy per house under the Wheatley and Chamberlain Acts and under the proposed Slum-clearance Bill?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The capital values are approximately as follow:

    £

    £4 for 20 years under the 1923 Act

    50

    £7 10s. for 40 years under the 1924 Act

    129

    £2 5s. per person for 40 years proposed under the present Bill on the basis of five persons to a house on average

    193

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    BRACEBRIDGE DOE MENTAL HOSPITAL.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the delay in authorising the alterations and improvements required by the visiting committee to the Bracebridge Mental Hospital; whether he is aware that the committee is being constantly referred from one Government Department to another; and whether he can see his way to obviate the present delay in the interests of patients?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The proposals have required the consideration of the Ministry of Health and the Electricity Commissioners as to the power plant at the Hospital. I will endeavour to ensure that an early decision is given.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is co-ordinating the arrangements, or whether some other Department is arranging this matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: All arrangements in any Government are co-ordinated.

    ELECTRIC SIGNS (EYESIGHT).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the injurious effect on eyesight caused by certain electric signs employing the infrared ray; and whether he contemplates taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No cases have been brought to my notice in which it has been alleged that damage to eyesight has been caused by electric signs. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases he has in mind.

    SEWAGE DISPOSAL WORKS, HANWELL.
    Major SALMONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the residents in some 300 houses on the Elthorno Heights Estate, Hanwell, Middlesex, suffer inconvenience from the odours which emanate from the sewage-disposal works in the vicinity; whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the corporation of Ealing to expend the sum of £11,500 on the enlargement of such sewage-disposal works; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that the nuisance at present arising from the works shall be permanently eliminated in the interests of the health of the residents?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have received complaints. The town council have applied for sanction to a loan for the improvement of the works and inquiry into the application was recently held by one of my inspectors. On receipt of his report, I will consider the appropriate steps to be taken.

  MENTAL TREATMENT BILL (MEDICAL COMMISSIONERS).
  Mr. ERNEST WINTERTONasked the Minister of Health whether, with regard to the two medical commissioners to be appointed under the terms of the Mental Treatment Bill, he will favourably consider the suggestion that one of them should be a woman?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The Mental Treatment Bill proposes that, of the five Senior Commissioners who are to compose the Board of Control, one shall be a woman. In the appointment of the two Medical Senior Commissioners, it will be

  575
  necessary to have regard primarily to their qualifications for advising upon the treatment of mental disorders; and I cannot give any undertaking that one of the Medical Commissioners shall be a woman.

  LOCAL OFFICERS' SALARIES.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health how many county, county borough, and non-county borough clerks, medical officers of health, and other important officials receive salaries in excess of £1,000, £2,000, and £3,000 per annum at the last date for which figures are available?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have not the complete information required to answer my hon. Friend's question.

  LONDON SQUARES.
  Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Health when he proposes to introduce his Bill carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on London Squares; and is he aware of the urgency of the question, seeing that some property owners are anticipating legislation by selling for building purposes many of these squares?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I had hoped to introduce a Bill on this subject this Session, but, in view of the pressure of other business, I fear it may not now be possible to do so. I have no information on the point raised in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all parties in the House are agreed about the urgency of this matter, owing to the amount of building on these open spaces, and could not we have this Bill brought in this Session as an agreed Measure?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not satisfied that the Bill would be non-controversial.
  Mr. HARRIS: Could the right hon. Gentleman not satisfy himself on that point by introducing the Bill, so that we could see what the position is?
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Bills he has
  576
  promised to introduce in this House, and how many he has failed to introduce?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I think I have introduced all of them, except this particular one.

  POOR LAW.

    RELIEF, PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.
    Mr. MOSESasked the Minister of Health the number of able-bodied persons and their dependants in receipt of Poor Law relief in the parishes of Devonport, Plymouth, and Storehouse for the week ending 9th May, 1929, and the numbers for the corresponding week of May, 1930, receiving public assistance from the city of Plymouth, in which those parishes are now incorporated?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The return which gives the desired information is a monthly return, and that for May is not yet due. I regret, however, that the April return has not yet been received from the Plymouth Corporation.

    INSTRUCTIONAL COURSES (RELIEF SCALES).
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to inform the public assistance committees as to his wishes in regard to setting up instructional courses for recipients of outdoor relief at Poor Law institutes; and whether he will see to it that those who undertake these courses will receive a relief scale which will be not less than the benefit given to young persons attending training centres and instructional courses under the Ministry of Labour schemes?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already brought this matter to the notice of the new Poor Law authorities by circulars and the matter is also dealt with in the Relief Regulation Order, 1930, which was recently issued. The application of the principle must vary in different areas according to their requirements and resources, and the advice of my Department will be available to the several councils through my general inspectors. As regards the amount of relief, I would refer to Circular 1069 which says that in coming to a decision the authority should be guided by the needs of the individual household and not automatically by rule.
    Mr. PRICE: Will my right hon. Friend take further steps, in view of the lack of

    577
    information on this important matter which at present exists among Public Assistance Committees?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have communicated with them on several occasions, and, if my hon. Friend will tell me how I can bring the information more definitely to their notice, I shall be glad to help him.

    TEST WORK.
    Mr. PRICE (for Mr. CAPE)asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that physical tests are at present being imposed on recipients of outdoor relief in the mid-Cumberland relief committee area, and that the institute at Maryport has recently ordered 500 sleepers from the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company for the purpose of chopping up under the test-work schemes; whether he is aware that the wood blocks, chopped by the test workers, have been sold; and whether, in view of the recommendations contained in Circular No. 1069 on poor relief, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. I will make inquiries and communicate further with my hon. Friend.

  GERMAN REPARATIONS (LOAN).
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that it is proposed under the Young Plan to invite British investors to subscribe money to finance the coming German reparation loan to be issued in New York, London, Paris and elsewhere, he will arrange that there shall be a delay in the issue of the part which is to be allocated to London until British industry has obtained the capital necessary for its reorganisation?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: British investors will not be invited to subscribe to the issues of the reparation loan made in markets other than London. As regards the issue on the London market, I have already stated that the money subscribed will be applied to the redemption of Debt and will therefore be returned to the market, so that the operation can in no way affect the provision of capital for British industry.
  Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON - EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the promised White Paper, showing the amounts and due dates of the reparations to be received by the British Exchequer under the agreement entered into by him at the Hague, will be presented?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The White Paper showing the receipts of the British Exchequer under the Hague Agreements, is in course of preparation. The White Paper will include the text of the Trust Agreement as finally signed, and also a table showing the annual receipts of Great Britain both under the Young Plan and from the Hague Annuities. The reason for the delay is that the Trust Agreement has not yet been signed, but it is expected that it will be signed in Paris this week, and the White Paper will be issued as soon as possible after the receipt of authentic copies.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
  Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that, according to Article 17B of the warrant, a widow must prove that her husband died wholly as a result of war service, and in view of the difficulty of proving this after so long a period between service and death, he will consider the modification of the word wholly?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): The modification suggested is not called for since provision is already made in another portion of Article 17 for cases in which the pensioner's death, while not wholly due to war service, is certified to have been materially accelerated by it.

  COAL INDUSTRY (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the provisions in the German-Polish commercial treaty whereby Poland will deliver 320,000 tons of coal per month to Germany; and whether, seeing that there

  579
  is already a surplus of coal in Germany, any steps are being taken to ensure that this coal is not dumped in British markets?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The treaty in question has, however, not yet been ratified and is, therefore, not in force. With regard to the second part, I am not clear what steps my hon. Friend has in mind.

  EUROPEAN FEDERAL UNION (FRENCH MEMORANDUM).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information concerning a proposed United States of Europe; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received from the French Government a memorandum containing certain suggestions regarding the organisation of a system of federal union in Europe. His Majesty's Government will lose no time in giving these suggestions their most earnest consideration.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (UPPER SILESIA).
  Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the League of Nations to publish a report of the investigations carried out by a member of the secretariat in Upper Silesia in October, 1929?
  Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has no knowledge of any report concerning Upper Silesia made to the League in October, 1929, other than that in regard to the insurance of miners in the ceded territory, presented by Monsieur Albert Thomas in that month. My hon. Friend will find this report in the Journal of the League for February, 1930. If he has any other report in mind, perhaps he will kindly give me further details.

  ROYAL NAVY (BUILDING PROGRAMME, 1930).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any additional warships will be laid down this year and, in particular, whether arrangements have been made to build extra submarines?
  Mr. PALING (Lord of the Treasury): A decision has not yet been reached as to the naval construction programme for 1930.

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to obtain through the International Labour Office an international agreement respecting the interpretation of terms used in the Washington Hours Convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: His Majesty's Government consider that the interpretation of terms used in the Washington Hours Convention can best be dealt with under Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles. Article 408 requires each State Member of the International Labour Organisation to make an annual report to the International Labour Office on the measures which it has taken to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which it is a party. Articles 409–420 provide machinery for enabling complaints to be made to the International Labour Office of the failure of States Members to secure effective observance of ratified conventions, for investigating such complaints, and for obtaining a decision with regard to them, including, where necessary, a reference to the Permanent Court of International Justice.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the Minister of Labour state why there is so much confusion in the interpretation of these various articles by various countries?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I venture to give my own opinion that it is because there have been so few definite ratifications. The interpretation of terms cannot begin until after ratification.
  Sir K. WOOD: Would it not be better to have a definite understanding about

  581
  these matters beforehand, and not wait until after the Treaty is signed?
  Mr. DAY: Would not that cause the confusion to be prolonged?
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour what definitions are given to the term continuous processes in relation to its use in the Washington Hours Convention by those countries which have ratified that Convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: A report on this subject is made each year by the Director of the International Labour Office to the International Labour Conference. The latest available information is contained in Part II of the Report made in 1929, of which there is a copy in the Library.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour in what particulars the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill departs from the terms of the Washington Hours Convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for the Sowerby Division of Yorkshire on 17th April last, I am advised that the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill fulfils the requirements of the Washington Convention except in so far as the hours of persons employed underground in coal mines are concerned. The hours of such workers are the subject of other legislation.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether all the representatives of the British Trade Union accept those conditions?
  Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Will the Bill bring the Washington Convention into line with existing customs with regard to work in the retail trade?
  Miss BONDFIELD: It does not apply to the retail trade.

  ALIEN (ISADOR DREAZAN).
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the Home Secretary when and where Isador Dreazan, alias Jack Mills, landed in this country; what type of passport did he use; and by whom was it issued?
  Mr. SHORT: Dreazan landed on the 29th January last at Dover. He carried an American passport issued at Washington on the 12th June, 1929.

  LAW OFFICERS (SALARIES AND FEES).
  Sir A. POWNALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can now say what has been drawn in the financial year ending 31st March, 1930, as salary and fees by the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The amounts, correct to the nearest £, are as follows:

  —

  Salary.

  Fees.

  Total.

  Attorney-General.

  £

  £

  £

  Sir T. W. H. Inskip

  1,346

  8,783

  10,129

  Sir W. Jowitt

  5,654

  8,787

  14,441

  Solicitor-General.

  Sir F. B. Merriman

  1,154

  3,147

  4,301

  Sir J. B. Melville

  4,846

  3,625

  8,471

  Sir K. WOOD: Are these figures an example of "Socialism" in our time"?
  Sir A. POWNALL: Have the Government any intention of altering the arrangement by which legal gentlemen get these very large sums?
  Mr. THORNE: You had the chance; why did not you alter it?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, that is not a question for me to answer. These fees are determined by considerations which were decided long before the present Government came into office.

  CONSUMERS COUNCIL BILL.
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any protests from trade organisations against the provisions of the Consumers Council Bill; and, if so, whether any effective action is proposed to be taken as the result of their observations?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: Resolutions have been received from certain organisations, and are being duly considered.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Have any resolutions been received from the co-operative movement?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No; not, I think, up to this point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Supply (11th Allotted. Day). The India Office Vote will be put down, I understand.
Tuesday: Finance Bill, Committee.
Wednesday: Supply (12th Allotted Day). I understand that the Vote for the Office of the Lord Privy Seal will be put down.
Thursday: Education Bill, Second Reading.
Friday: Education (Money) Resolution, Committee.
Mr. BALDWIN: I hope that the Prime Minister will bear in mind that a particularly short time is being allowed to elapse between the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and the beginning of the Committee stage. The Finance Bill is always a very intricate one, and ample time is usually allowed for the putting down of Amendments, generally two or three weeks. This time it is very short, and I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman, in looking at the business, could consider the possibility of putting that date back.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two definite questions. The first is, whether he is in a position to say when he can give us a date for the Motion that is standing in my name; and the second is whether, for the information of the House, he is yet ready to tell us when we may hope to rise for the Whitsuntide Recess?
The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I understand that we have followed just the ordinary practice so far as the Finance Bill is concerned, and that Tuesday will give plenty of time at any rate for the early Amendments to be put down. The Bill is only put down for one day next week. With reference to the second part of the question, I am always glad to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman when he puts down these Resolutions, and, of course, time will be given for the discussion of this one. As regards the date, I would ask if he will be good enough to allow it to be discussed through the ordinary channels. As
584
regards the Whitsuntide Recess, I propose to put down the Motion for the Adjournment for Friday, the 6th June, and to ask the House to reassemble, after the Recess, on Tuesday, the 17th June.

RULES OF DEBATE.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I desire to seek your Ruling, Sir, and also guidance for the House, upon an incident that occurred on Tuesday during the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then read certain quotations from the society columns of some newspapers which I submit to you, raise general questions in which the House requires the guidance of the Chair. I see no need to re-read the passage in question as it is, no doubt, familiar to most Members of the House. The specific point on which I wish to draw your attention and to secure your Ruling is how far a Member, or a Minister, is justified in these Debates in referring to private persons outside this House and 'in coupling the name of a lady with a Member of the House and introducing that matter in debate? I cannot consider that the matter can be outside the realms of strict order, because it is quite possible that, if this kind of allusion and reference became common in the House, it would lead upon occasion to extremely disorderly episodes in our proceedings which would be regretted by all, and, therefore, I would ask you to give us your guidance upon the matter as a point of Order, and, quite apart from order, I would ask you whether the practice and tradition of the House have not, for instance, rendered all reference to conversations in the Lobbies or the Smoking Rooms unsuitable to our Debates and, in the view of all parties, whether a similar convention should not be adopted to protect private individuals from annoyance in this respect?
Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me, in the first place I think it would have been better, if exception was taken to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech on Tuesday, that the question should have been raised at that time and not so long afterwards as to-day. It is a rather dangerous precedent to establish fox incidents which

585
may have occurred in debate some days ago to be raised as points of order after some time has elapsed. It is better to deal with them at the time. I am sure, in a matter of this kind, the House will realise that my duty in the conduct of debate is, to the best of my ability, to ensure that debate is conducted with decorum and that the Privileges of the House are thoroughly safeguarded; also that within the rules of order, Members are entitled to freedom of speech and to express their views as they think fit. Beyond that I must leave it entirely to Members themselves to appreciate their responsibility in this matter.
As regards the actual quotation which was read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to which the right hon. Gentleman takes exception, I have no Ruling to give, because certainly no actual point of Order arises. If I say anything on the question, it can but be taken as my own opinion as to what should and what should not be done in the House. I think it would be better if no reference were made to incidents in the private lives of Members of the House, because I do not think any of us is so perfect that we can afford to accuse others either directly or by insinuation. As regards the other question that arises, it appears to me that references by name to incidents in the private life of Members outside the House is not desirable.
Mr. P. SNOWDEN: If I may be permitted to say so, I entirely agree with the concluding part of your observations. I think, as a general rule, it is very undesirable that references should be made in this House to people outside, but we all know, as a matter of fact, that that general rule finds a good many particular exceptions. In regard to the incident out of which the right hon. Gentleman's question has arisen, may I be permitted to remind the House of the circumstances that gave rise to my remarks? I was dealing with statements that had been made by the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) about the export of capital and the lack of saving which result from the increase a direct taxation. In very general terms, and without any personal reference to anyone, I pointed out one form of the export of capital and quoted an observation of a certain newspaper about the spectacle that Victoria Station
586
afforded a day or two after Easter of Britishers who had come back to this country with their pockets empty. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Tory Whip threw an observation across the Floor, which was heard by the whole House, mentioning the name of an hon. colleague of mine, and I said, "If he were there he was not alone," and it will be within the recollection of the House that that observation was followed by loud and prolonged cheers from the other side of the House, evidently conveying some insinuation or innuendo, and it was not till after that incident that I read the extract.
May I be permitted to say this further. When my attention was directed to newspaper references this morning to this incident, and a construction had been placed upon what I read which was far from my mind, I wrote at once to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead, and I may perhaps be permitted to read my letter:
"I was astounded to see the enclosed items in the 'Daily Mail' and the Daily 'News' this morning. It would have been grossly improper for me to have made, even by the vaguest implication, any insinuation of the kind that seems to be suggested, and I hope it is unnecessary for me to say that nothing was further from my mind. If it had for a moment occurred to me that such a suggestion could be made, I should not have thought of reading the extract from the 'Daily Express.' In any case, as I said in the House, I should not have done so had it not been for Eyres Monsell's interjection about one of my colleagues."
I will only add this. Members who were listening at the time will remember that the Debate at that stage had become somewhat heated, and what I did I did unpremeditatedly, and in the circumstances that I have explained, and I can only repeat the observation that I made at the beginning of my remarks, that, as a general principle, I think it is highly improper that the names of outsiders should be introduced unless absolutely necessary in our Debates. I want further to say that if what I did caused any pain at all to any persons concerned, I am deeply sorry.
HON. MEMBERS: Eyres Monsell!
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member rise on a point of Order?
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to address you, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: The incident is now closed.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I in the first place—
Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Charles Trevelyan.

EDUCATION BILL,
"to raise to fifteen years the age up to which parents are required to cause their children to receive efficient elementary instruction and to attend school; to make provision for maintenance allowances in respect of children attending school up to that age who are over the age of fourteen years; to empower local education authorities to make arrangements with respect to non-provided elementary schools; and to facilitate the withdrawal from school of children for religious observance and instruction," presented by Sir Charles Trevelyan; supported by Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, and Mr. Morgan Jones; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  FALMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords] (Certified Bill).
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  BRISTOL CATTLE MARKET BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 1) BILL (Certified Bill).
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

  SUTTON COLDFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PLAYING FIELDS (EXEMPTION FROM RATING) BILL.
Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee B.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read;
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report in respect of the London Building Acts (Consolidation) Bill [Lords], changed to "London Building Bill [Lords]" (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [10th Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1930.

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS VI.

      DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £414,918, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Land Improvement, Agricultural Education and Training, Loans to Co-operative Societies, a Grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a Grant in respect of the Hebridean Drifter Service, and certain Grants-in-Aid."—[NOTE.—£160,000 has been voted on account.]
      4.0 p.m.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I want to take this opportunity of saying a few words regarding the condition of the agricultural industry, in addition to dealing briefly with the administration of the Department. The condition of agriculture during the past year, particularly as regards arable farming, has caused great anxiety to everyone interested in the continued prosperity of our oldest industry, and one that still occupies a high, though not since 1911 the highest, place in our national economy. The annual value of British agriculture is some £274,000,000 or £24,000,000 greater than Australia, and only £68,000,000 less than Canada, both as yet essentially agricultural and not industrial countries. This large annual British output is mainly derived from livestock and livestock products, which provide 70 per cent. of the total, while wheat only contributes 5 per cent., and the amount of cereals as a whole sold off the farms is only 10 per cent. of the total agricultural output. Britain is, therefore, predominantly a livestock country. This huge industry, producing such a large part of our national income and employing no fewer than 887,000 of our people, is not only
      602
      important to the agricultural community, but is of vital interest to the whole nation.
      During the whole time that I have held my present office, less than a year, I have constantly had before me the condition of agriculture, and the measures it was possible for me to take for its relief and its general development. In the course of that time, I have had the opportunity of discussing the condition of the industry with many of the men with practical experience of all its difficulties, with the view of helping me to form an opinion as to the remedies that are required to enable the industry to overcome the difficulties which it is facing. As the result of these consultations and conferences I have reached the conclusion that our agricultural industry should aim at the development and evolution of a policy which is in accordance with the natural advantages of the country, and which is capable of supplying a widespread demand. It is from that point of view that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is proceeding in order to help the industry, if possible, to work out its own salvation.
      The discussion of this Estimate gives me the opportunity of reminding the Committee of some of the steps which have, during the past year, been taken towards the attainment of the end upon which I have just laid stress. In my view, the prosperity of the farmer has always been prejudiced by his relations with the middleman. Accordingly, one of the first steps that I took was to appoint a strong and representative committee to inquire into the present position of agricultural co-operation in Scotland, and to consider what steps are practicable and desirable with a view to the development and extension of co-operation. This committee has now reported to me, and its report is available for Members. The report includes recommendations of State guarantees to banks in respect of loans and overdrafts, the appointment of a finance committee to examine applications for loans and overdrafts, the extension of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, compulsory grading of produce, dealing with recalcitrant minorities, the formation of a Scottish Agricultural Co-operative Federation, and the encouragement of co-operation in the Western Highlands

      603
      and Islands. These recommendations, it is needless to say, are at present receiving my earnest consideration and attention.
      The second point with which I want to deal is that of the Land Drainage Bill, which I introduced earlier in the Session and has been passed into law. Already there are in hand two schemes, which have been under discussion for some time, dealing with the flooding of land in the valley of the River Kelvin, and with the condition of the land and houses at the mouth of the River Spey. Inspection is rapidly proceeding in the Kelvin Valley, with a view to drawing up a formal scheme, while the results of an engineering survey at the mouth of the Spey is under consideration. Other cases have been investigated where remedial measures appear to be called for, such as those in connection with irregularities in the courses of the Rivers Nith, Annan, Dee, Clyde and the Tay. The provision for field drainage (apart from arterial drainage) and the draining of hill pastures, as a matter of agricultural development, has been increased from about £12,000 to £30,000 in the present year. That such an increase was necessary is shown by the fact that already application has been made for a grant of over £40,000. The work of allocating the grants is proceeding as rapidly as the officials of the Department can manage it, and already over £16,000 has been allocated. Partly with the view of aiding the training of skilled drainers, and partly to ascertain the possibilities of the value of reclamation work, I have had surveys made of various sections of the extensive area covered by the Flanders Moss in Stirlingshire, and I am now examining the costs which would be involved in operating drainage works on a selected portion of the moss. I hope that the results of these inquiries, which are being pressed forward, may enable me to carry through an experimental scheme, which, I think, will be of great value.
      The next subject which has been engaging our attention during the course of the present year has been that of the Regulations made under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1928, which enables the Department to inaugurate experiments for grading and
      604
      marking in accordance with the prescribed definitions of Scottish beef killed in Aberdeen, Inverurie and a few outlying centres in Aberdeenshire and Banffshire. The selection of these centres was governed by the consideration that large quantities of Scottish beef are regularly consigned thence to London, where the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries had already initiated rather similar experiments. Since the experiment was commenced in the last days of October, 1929, the number of wholesale butchers in Aberdeenshire and district taking advantage of it, has increased from 18 in the first week to 142 in the last week of March. The number of sides of beef graded and marked increased from 537 in the week ended 2nd November, to 2,483 in the week ended 29th March. Of the latter number, it is estimated that 1,986 sides reached the London market, representing 79.3 per cent. of the total supply of Scottish beef arriving there. It is understood to be the opinion of the agricultural industry in Scotland that the present grading experiment in Aberdeenshire has helped the market for good fat cattle to a very substantial extent, and we are keeping in close touch with this development, as we consider that it is one of the things that will help the Scottish farming community to overcome their difficulties.
      The next thing which has been engaging our attention is the milk feeding experiment which is being conducted in Lanarkshire. It is the largest experiment of its kind which has ever been undertaken in the country. Ten thousand children are each receiving three-quarters of a pint of Grade "A" (T.T.) milk per day. The milk is derived from 26 tubercle-free herds scattered over Aberdeenshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire. Roughly 950 gallons of milk are consumed each day, half of which is pasteurized while the remainder is consumed raw. The results of this experiment will, it is hoped, demonstrate the value of fresh milk, and particularly milk from tubercle-free herds, as a food for children, and thus lead to a greatly increased consumption which will benefit the dairy farming industry substantially.
      With regard to transport, I should like to say that the transport services instituted under the contract between the Government and Messrs. David

      605
      MacBrayne (1928) Limited have been further developed, with a view to a more efficient service and lower costs of transport being provided for the agriculturists in the Highlands and Islands. The facilities for an effective transport system are still hampered by lack of adequate piers and landing places, particularly in the north and in the Highlands. We are actively devoting our attention to this problem, which presents many difficulties. Already we have dealt, as a matter of urgency, with the important case of Lochboisdale pier, for the repair of which it is proposed, in the Estimate before the Committee, to provide from the funds of the department a grant of £8,000, which is to be supplemented by a sum of £1,000 from the Fishery Board. This is a case in which there can be no doubt as to the urgent necessity for immediate action. But, if we are to deal effectively and comprehensively with the whole problem, it will be necessary to examine the requirements all round the north and north-west coasts in detail. It seems to us essential that the whole problem should comprehensively be surveyed and a clear and definite policy formulated. Accordingly an inter-departmental inquiry for that purpose has been set on foot. I need hardly say that in the course of these investigations full consideration will be given to the numerous representations which have already been made to me by hon. Members and others interested in the Highlands and Islands.
      I have inserted in the Estimates the maximum provision for land settlement purposes. I have made provision for a sum of £60,000 in excess of the amount set aside for that purpose last year. Since June last year I have authorised the acquisition of 12 estates embracing over 12,000 acres suitable for subdivision into at least 181 new holdings, and I instructed that the progress of settlement should be accelerated to the maximum possible within the limits of the funds available. During the past year the Department has entered into commitments amounting to £363,000. This figure compares with commitments for the two previous years of £135,000 and £108,500 respectively. The schemes to which the Department are committed or in which negotiations are well advanced will, it is estimated, provide for the settlement of between 400 and 500
      606
      new holders in the course of the next few years. Further schemes are under consideration and will proceed as funds permit.
      While on this subject it is worth while to consider the contribution of the Department's activities under the head of Land Settlement to the solution of the housing problem in the rural areas which sometimes attracts less attention than it deserves and receives less consideration than housing in the industrial centres of population. The constitution of holdings on a scheme of land settlement not only provides the holders with an independent living, but it also necessitates the building of new houses or the sub-division of existing farmhouses into, sometimes, two or three separate dwellings, involving adaptation and frequently considerable repairs. Steadings have also to be provided either by sub-division of existing farm steadings or the erection of new buildings varying from the store accommodation suitable for a market gardener to the various accommodation of a stock-raising holding. The total number of houses and steadings which the Department have erected or improved since 1912 in this way and in pursuance of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1911, are no fewer than 3,702 and 1,772, respectively. The number in course of erection or adaptation or not yet begun but to whose provision the Department are committed is 931 houses and 370 steadings, making grand totals of 4,633 houses and 2,142 steadings, which the Department will have erected, adapted and improved on completion of their committed programme. The total estimated initial cost of this housing provision is £1,425,000, of which, approximately, £1,121,000 was expended by the 31st March, 1930, and roughly, £304,000 remains to be spent. The provision of all this housing has engaged tradesmen and others in useful work contributing generally to their own welfare as well as to the permanent benefit of the smallholders on whose behalf these land settlement schemes have been entered into.
      I want to discuss what the Department have done in regard to education and research. With our three Agricultural Colleges, whose activities cover the whole country, and our six Research Institutes, we have, I believe, in Scotland machinery of a kind unexcelled in any other part

      607
      of the world for educating the agricultural population and for investigating the innumerable scientific and economic problems of the industry. The educational work of the colleges, both in the central classes and throughout the counties, is too well known for me to spend much time in explanations. It has been said—it may be with truth—that Scottish farmers are sometimes slow in adopting new ideas or new methods. A recent development at the Glasgow College points to a more receptive and progressive attitude. In connection with the clean milk competitions in that area, bacteriological examination of samples of milk was made, and the importance of this speedily recognised by the farmers. Large numbers of them are now regularly sending samples of milk to the college to be tested for bacterial content. During the year ending 31st March last, 830 farmers were availing themselves of this service, as compared with 367 in the previous year, while the actual number of samples rose from 2,767 to 8,692. The fruits of research are notoriously a slow ripening crop, and the harvest cannot be hurried, but valuable benefits have already been gained and there is great promise of more to come.
      The next question relates to another important section of the agricultural crop, namely, the potato crop. From the point of view of the producer and the consumer I do not think that the importance of the potato crop can be overestimated. It is important from the point of view of the rotation of crops, it gives employment to a large amount of labour and it provides, or should provide, a valuable article of diet at moderate cost. The economic difficulty in which the potato growers are placed at the present time is due in the first place to the abnormally large yield of the crop last year. I fear that the farmer is not altogether free from responsibility for the situation which has arisen. In recent years the tendency has been more and more to plant those varieties which would produce the greatest weight per acre, irrespective of the eating and keeping qualities of the tubers. This fact has fostered in the consumer a tendency which is much to be deplored, that is, to avoid at this season the homegrown main crop varieties of potatoes
      608
      and to buy instead imported early varieties probably of no greater nutritive value but of more attractive flavour. That has resulted in an obvious disadvantage, amounting to hardship, to the home farmer, and at the same time it has meant the payment by the consumer of an exhorbitant price far in excess of the food value of the potatoes bought. My point is illustrated in the following paragraph, which was taken from the "Glasgow Herald" on Saturday last:
      "The paragraph given in our news columns to-day regarding the rapid increase at this season in the volume of potato imports, despite the lack of a market for the home crop of old potatoes, offers a basis for an interesting calculation on the public's readiness to pay dearly for a luxury. Fine old potatoes can be bought retail at 2s. per cwt., or £2 per ton, yet last week 8,400 tons of foreign early potatoes arrived and made wholesale prices of 22s, per cwt. of leading English centres. These Spanish and other potatoes were retailed in Glasgow at 6d. per 1b., which works out at £56 per ton. So that one week's imports of luxury potatoes, taken at the price ruling on the retail stage, incurred a bill on consumers of £470,000. No wonder our farmers grumble."
      There is no wonder that one frequently hears the expression: "What about buying British goods now." This is a striking example of what would be a saving to the consumer as well as a benefit to the producer if our people would take a common-sense view of the situation and give the encouragement to the farming community that is necessary and secure for themselves also a better article at a much lower price.
      There are other directions in which my attention has been engaged with a view to carrying out the policy of helping the farming community to overcome their difficulties and, in a general way, to develop the industry. I look upon the agricultural industry as one of the vital industries as far as this nation is concerned, and as the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland for the time being I consider it to be my duty to do all that I can to assist the farming community to overcome their difficulties and to develop the industry to a greater extent, if possible, than has been the case in recent years. With that object in view I am reviewing other things, in addition to the matters to which I have drawn the attention of the Committee. I am considering matters, in consultation with men of practical ex-

      609
      perience, which may be of value to the industry and calculated to overcome the difficulties of the industry. These matters are under my close personal observation. Whatever I am able to do to help the industry to overcome its difficulties and to develop to such an extent as will enable it to provide employment for a larger number of people than in the past, it will be a real pleasure to do it.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The statement of the Secretary of State marks a new departure. From 1911 till this year we were always accustomed to discuss what was called the Board of Agriculture. This year, for the first time, we have listened to a statement not upon the limited sphere which we were accustomed to associate with the Board of Agriculture but upon the broad, general outline of agricultural policy which a Minister of Agriculture would be able to put before any House. My right hon. Friend feels satisfied with the general description which he gave of the work done by his Department. I cannot cavil at a good deal of the work that is done. He dealt with the question of agricultural education and research, but he failed to point out that in the Estimate this year he is decreasing the amount spent on agricultural education. One of the good things that was done by the late Secretary of State was to encourage as far as possible agricultural research and agricultural education, and I should like to know from the present Secretary of State or from the Under-Secretary why it is that there is a curtailment in the amount which is being spent on agricultural education this year.
      The right hon. Gentleman dealt very sparingly with the question of agricultural development. He did not give us any idea what was happening under the various Acts which have been passed dealing primarily with agriculture. I would refer particularly to the administration of the Agricultural Credits Act. In a report which has been submitted to us this year we have what we have never had before, a long description of the various deputations which have been received during the past year by the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary. A careful perusal of the reports will show the state of feeling there is at the present time, and during the tenure of the present Government, in the agricultural com-
      610
      munity. There is no doubt that the state of the agricultural industry is bad at the present time. Everybody knows that. On this side of the House we have on many occasions brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman a great many points dealing with agriculture which were militating against its success, and on almost every occasion we have been told that this, that and the next thing was "receiving consideration." There was consideration, sympathetic consideration, serious consideration, and now we have "active consideration." I am glad to find that we have got one stage further in regard to the Committee on agricultural co-operation. Again, my right hon. Friend could not resist the temptation to tell us that the report was "receiving his consideration." I know that the report has only just gone to him, but I would remind him that we on this side have become so accustomed to this "consideration" that we warn him that we shall watch to see what steps he and his Department take in order to put into effect the various proposals brought forward by that Committee.
      The Under-Secretary of State was in charge of one deputation, which dealt with the depredations of red deer. That is a point which has been raised on more than one occasion. I was glad to find that landlords and smallholders were equally anxious to come to agreement in order to stop these depredations. There is nothing more heartbreaking to the smallholder than to find that after he has expended all his labour and the labour of his family upon his holding, in November or December the crops have been destroyed by the red deer from neighbouring forests. At the end of his speech the Secretary of State drew special attention to the potato industry. He is right in saying that the potato industry is one branch of agriculture which provides a great amount of employment. I notice that he received a deputation from the farmers in Scotland dealing with last year's crop of potatoes. They wanted to know what the Government were going to do to help them to sell the crop. The Government could have assisted in many ways. They could have assisted by dealing with the railway company, in securing better freights, and they could have shown their deep interest in this problem in

      611
      more ways than one, but as far as I know not a single thing has been done.
      I will not deal with the general question of cereals, but I am glad to find that on the question of a general agricultural policy the lines advocated by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George), my colleagues and myself has at last been acceeded to by the Government, namely, that there should be a conference of the three political parties in order to see what can be done with regard to the subsidised dumping of cereals, and the whole question of agriculture, because, while in England the question of wheat is of importance, in Scotland oats are of colossal importance. When we are in competition with German oats we are in competition with the genuine article. It is only the German oats which are comparable with our own. They are of the same form and dryness, and, while other oats may come in from the Argentine, they are not the same as the German oats which are being sent here under subsidy. We therefore welcome the pronouncement made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries yesterday, and we welcome the proposals made now on behalf of the Government that a conference should be entered into by the three parties to discuss the whole problem of agriculture.
      It is not only the large farmer who is concerned with these difficult problems, but the smallholder is equally concerned, and in many cases more concerned, and the Government are under a greater responsibility when the question of smallholder comes up than when the question of the large farmer comes up. The smallholders were placed on the Highlands and Islands at very high cost, in many cases, by the Government, and they have been, during the whole of these years, directly under the aegis of the Board. One of the real troubles with regard to the small land-owning community at the present time, particularly in the Highlands, is the need of meeting costs which they are unable to bear. They were settled upon the land at the time when prices were high and stock was dear, when implements and land were dear, and in almost every case they have been unable to overcome those initial difficulties. The time has come, I think, when they should not be
      612
      harassed, as recently they have been, with this new principle of equipped rent, but rather be granted a revision of the various loans and bonds which are at the present time outstanding.
      The Under-Secretary of State, when he was in a less responsible position, used to fulminate, and I agreed with him, against the process of de-population in the Highlands and Islands. I do not think that anything said to-day by the Secretary for Scotland is going to decrease that volume of de-population. I remember, 20 years ago, when I fought the constituency which I now represent, going to schools which were full of children, and when I go there now I find some of them shut and others with seven, eight or nine children in them. That is what is happening all over the Islands, and, if we cannot keep them, I do not know what is going to happen to the country. We have rural industry dying. It is true that my right hon. Friend can reply by saying that this is due to mass production, that goods can be sent by the cash-on-delivery system by post, and that the village shoemaker, carpenter, or blacksmith is no longer needed in the rural community. But I thought that the present Government, at any rate, would have made some attempt to deal with that serious problem. I find, however, that all that they have done in this matter has been to purchase a van from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to send round the country to teach the village blacksmith how to deal with oxy-acetylene for welding purposes. At the present moment this van is out of service because it has to be reconditioned. You can imagine that van going all over the country teaching the village blacksmith the effect of this system.
      "Something attempted, something done,
      Has earned a night's repose."
      That is all I can find in this report as to what the Government propose to do to revive and maintain these rural industries. The whole thing is preposterous. What are they doing? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was paying special attention to transport. Transport is a primary necessity of the rural community if they are to live in a satisfactory condition. Up to last year all that could be spent was a miserable £10,000 upon roads

      613
      and bridges in congested districts. I am glad he has added to that amount and has made it £16,000 a year. By adding to it he has done something, but I do not think he realises what is happening in the Western Highlands. I could take him to a place on the shores of Loch Broom where no road is provided and where the children in consequence cannot go to school in winter. I could take him to Apple Cross, one of the most beautiful places in the country. Ever since the MacBrayne steamers started a steamer called there twice a day, in the afternoon and again on the way back, but since the new arrangement was passed by this House and a guarantee was given that that service would not be diminished, that steamer has ceased to call coming and going in the winter, and, if anyone is ill, they cannot be evacuated and anyone wishing to leave has to go right up to Stornoway and right down to—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the question of the steamer service is in order.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Mr. Dunnico, I think it is. My right hon. Friend dealt fully with the whole question. You will find it referred to on page 89 of the report, and I submit that I am quite in order in dealing with this particular point. May I bring another point to my right hon. Friend's notice, that for the Christmas holidays and the Easter holidays 12 children from that village cannot get home for the vacation.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not find that this comes under this Vote.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: You will find it on page 89, but in any case the Secretary of State dealt at great length with this particular point. I was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the grading of meat and the disposal of it, and also about milk. Those are two admirable things, and he deserves the thanks of the Committee for all he has done in that connection. May I say, further, that I think that the Department has been anxious to stimulate an interest in improved methods of cultivation and of breeding, and they are carrying on a systematical search in agriculture. On more than one occasion, I think, I called attention to shows of cattle, horses and sheep held annually all over the country, and when one thinks
      614
      of 25 years ago one realises the enormous distinction between the quality and the standard of stock to-day compared with those remote days, and a deep debt of gratitude is due to the Board of Agriculture for what it is doing, and has done in the past, in connection with this matter.
      I was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the handsome contribution of Mr. T. B. Macaulay, a very distinguished highlander who came from the Island of Lewis and went to Canada. He returned to the Island of Lewis last year and he set about trying to find out how best to improve the conditions of the people from whom he sprang. The Secretary of State might have drawn attention to the fact that not only has he established a Macaulay Institute for research in soils, particularly of peat, but he has established prizes and a fund in his native island to encourage the good management of holdings, crops, and land reclamation.
      5.0 p.m.
      The right hon. Gentleman seems to be very satisfied with what has been done in connection with land settlement, but, if he will allow me to say so, I think that the position of land settlement is still far from satisfactory. Since 1912, there have been no less than 23,441 applications. There are 7,000 of these applications for holdings still to be settled, and there are 11,000 names which have been taken off the lists. That is a very serious state of affairs. There are many reasons given for these names being taken off the lists. Very likely some may have been ineffective applications, but there is no doubt in my mind that many grew sick and tired of waiting. All that happened last year was that only 240 people were settled upon the land, and yet we have £128,000 spent upon travelling expenses and other administrative purposes. There were 175 put on to new holdings and 65 on to enlargements. When you think that it costs £255 to the State to settle anyone upon the land, and when you realise the incalculable value, as an asset to the country, of these smallholders, I am astonished that the present Government have not done more than they have done in this particular direction. It used to be said that there was no real demand for small holdings. You have only to read this report to find out that there is a genuine demand for

      615
      small holdings. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State must have been making a mistake when he said that he proposed to settle 400 or 500 more holders within the next few years. I hoped that he was going to settle 400 or 500 more holders on the land within the next few months, and not years.
      Mr. W. ADAMSON: What I said had no reference at all to the total number that will be settled within the next few years. I said that schemes were on hand now which would settle 400 or 500 more within the next few years; and I pointed out that I was accelerating land settlement to the fullest extent permissible by the funds at my disposal.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is very true, but the funds at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal may be very meagre. If the right hon. Gentleman admits, as he has done, that it is a good thing to settle these persons on the land, he ought to see to it that his Department helps him by doing its level best to get more money in order to meet the ever-growing needs of land settlement. Not only is the demand a real demand, but it is a growing demand, and the most remarkable fact is that the demand is growing in the non-crofting counties. Another remarkable fact is this, and I would especially refer the Under-Secretary of State to it. The Report deals with what is called the "latent demand." I would like to read a short extract from the Report on this point:
      "The lists inevitably carry a proportion of ineffective applications. This proportion may, however, be taken to be more than balanced by the latent demand that is awakened whenever a scheme is projected by the Department. This latent demand is usually from applicants of a good class who have refrained from lodging applications until a definite prospect of settlement is revealed. As an instance of this, the scheme of Strawfrank in Lanarkshire, on which eleven applicants were settled, may be cited. During the year preceding that term, when work was being carried out on the scheme, applications for settlement in the district were received from 18 men whose names had not previously been on the Department's lists, and most of whom could be regarded as suitable for settlement."
      I say that that is a very satisfactory thing to find in the Report. Let me deal with two more questions only. I want to say one word about drainage. I am
      616
      glad to see that an additional amount is to be expended on drainage this year. The drainage scheme last year was an utter failure, but I was interested to hear from the Secretary of State that under the new scheme, which is not so complicated, there were demands for something like £40,000 for new drainage schemes. These schemes are not arterial drainage schemes, but field drainage schemes. If by any chance the whole of that amount is not expended this year, I want to know from the Under-Secretary of State whether he is going to continue the iniquitous practice of handing back the residue to the Treasury. It has always been most unfair, when money, after a struggle from these benches, has been acquired for a certain definite purpose, if, through the laziness or otherwise of the Department, that money is not expended, but is sent back to the Department and is lost to those for whom it was obtained by the activities of Members of Parliament.
      Let me deal with my final point. We have heard a great deal about the work which was done under a certain Act. I have been astonished, and so I venture to think would all in this Committee be, to find that the right hon. Gentleman never even mentioned the words "agricultural credits." That Act was produced over a year ago with a flourish of trumpets. It was the harbinger of helpfulness to many disquieted farmers and holders all over the country. When I look to see what is happening in connection with this Act in the report, what do I find? I find that the Act is now a dead letter, and that the Scottish farmers and agriculturists have a great grievance, because, while the Act pertaining to Scotland is on the Statute Book, it is not in operation, whereas in England the Act is both on the Statute Book and is in operation. Therefore, the English farmers have an unfair advantage over the Scottish farmers in regard to the benefits which they get and which the Scottish farmers have not so far obtained. I will deal with the second part of the Act in one sentence. It was designed to facilitate the borrowing of money by agricultural co-operative societies on the security of goods belonging to them and in their possession. The only comment I shall make upon that is that not a single thing has been done

      617
      in connection with that part, and the report suggests that that part should be abolished and should not be considered in connection with any future operation under this Act.
      The really serious part is Part I. I have taken a great deal of trouble to make all sorts of inquiries as to what happened. I do not know whether the Committee remember what was proposed. It was proposed that an agricultural security company should be incorporated for the purpose of making loans on security for the purchase of agricultural land, and for making loans under the Improvement of Lands Act for agricultural purposes. The Department was authorised to make an advance to this company so as to establish a guarantee fund free of interest for 60 years in order to assist the company to give favourable loans to all borrowers. The borrower could be one of two persons—either a person who had already borrowed under another scheme, or a person who had not borrowed at all and was about to borrow in the future. If any person had borrowed under an old scheme, he was at liberty to get out of that scheme and come under the new one, and gain the benefits of this particular Act. One would have thought that a scheme of that kind would appeal to the farmers, and so it did. The report admits that application after application came for assistance under this scheme.
      I myself had two particularly hard cases, which I submitted to the Department, of two men who had bought their land upon the faith of this Act being put into active operation. To-day, they have the land, and they are being sued in the courts for the money. They relied upon the good word of the British Government. What has happened? So far as I can make out the Scottish Banks have refused to have this company incorporated. Some of them refuse to incorporate a company for this purpose. They having refused to do this, I want to know what other action the Government are taking. I see from the report that other arrangements have been made. It is high time that some arrangement should be made, because meanwhile there are cases of genuine hardship of large and small farmers who took upon themselves responsibilities on the faith of an Act of
      618
      Parliament passed by the British Government, and yet the Scottish Office sit there and have done absolutely nothing.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston)indicated dissent.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I repeat, they have done absolutely nothing. In England, across the Border, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries may not be so competent as the Scottish Office in many things, but in this matter they seem to have beaten them. They have given advantages and benefits to English farmers while the Scottish farmers and smallholders have been deprived of the benefits to which they are entitled. That is a very serious charge. It is a charge which is justified, and I want to hear from the Under-Secretary of State what the Government propose to do. In passing these strictures, I am sure I am only voicing the thoughts of many other Members in this House. It is high time that the Government took some effective steps to fulfil their statutory obligations and duties.
      Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how he would compel the banks to incorporate a company if they do not wish to do so?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is not my job. If I had been dealing with the matter, along with the most brilliant brains in Scotland which are at the disposal of the Under-Secretary of State, I would have found some other way of doing it, as the English people did. Under the Act you do not need to confine yourself to banks. You can go to insurance companies and to various other financial houses and get money upon good security. I think the right hon. Gentleman's interruption does not put the case in any better light. If at this stage he is wondering what the Opposition would be likely to have done, I fear the poor farmers, whose case we are putting forward at this moment, have not much to expect. I have nothing more to say at the present moment. I am very anxious to hear what the Government propose to do, particularly with regard to agricultural credits, and what further steps they are going to take to effect an improved and more generous land settlement.
      Sir JOHN GILMOUR: The occasion when Scottish Members have an opportunity of discussing the conduct of agricultural affairs in Scotland is always of peculiar interest to us. On this occasion we approach the subject with a feeling of insecurity as to the future because, obviously, agriculture in Scotland, as in other parts, is passing through a time of great difficulty. The Minister has the responsibility of endeavouring to carry out the regulations which Parliament imposes and making use of the assistance which Parliament places at his disposal. We have listened to-day to a speech by the Secretary of State, who has given us some account of what he has been able to do during the period he has held office. This occasion is remarkable because this is the first report that has been submitted to Parliament by a new department dealing with agriculture. I have watched the development of the new arrangements with peculiar interest, and in the hope that it will be a machine better suited to the changing times in which we are living. A department of this kind, with a wider outlook and wider powers, ought to be a much better machine in the hands of whoever is responsible for the time being for dealing with these problems.
      I hope it will be the policy of whoever is responsible for the work of this department to do everything in their power to obtain the confidence of the general agricultural community. It is quite easy to say that, but the confidence of the whole agricultural community will be obtained only by a close attention of the department to all the varying activities of agricultural life and calling into conference from time to time those who have practical knowledge of agricultural matters. The department must not be afraid of making use of those who represent practical agriculture throughout the country. While I admit, as one who has had experience of the Parliamentary work, that sometimes advisory councils and committees make themselves troublesome in the proposals they put forward, yet I feel that if the department is to attain to its full usefulness it must have the confidence of the general agricultural community.
      We have heard to-day from the Secretary of State an account of some of the things he is doing. We must all have
      620
      read the report with great interest. We see a continuance of the policy which has been carried out in the past; and let me say here that it is sometimes assumed that a change of political party means a material change in the policy which is being carried out. It is said that the older political parties have failed utterly in doing their duty to agriculture in the past, and it is now suggested that the three parties should come together and consider this problem without any party bias at all. I listened to a Debate on this point in the House yesterday, and it was said, quite truly, that whatever discussions you may have on that footing, whatever advantages you may get from such a conference, nevertheless, the question of effective measures for the solution of this problem must eventually be subject to the ordinary operation of party criticism and the party machine.
      In the past in Scotland we have been very fortunate in obtaining the co-operation of men of all parties with practical knowledge in making recommendations from that conference to Parliament. It is from bodies such as that, from such committees as the right hon. Gentleman has set up and whose report is now in our hands—the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation in Scotland—from bodies of that kind, speaking with first-hand knowledge of the problem, that Parliament is likely to get the material upon which it can form an opinion and upon which the Government in power, upon whom rests the responsibility for policy and for finding the money, if money has to be spent, can rely for guidance rather than any conference of political parties in this House. We, on the Floor of the House, can express with the greatest freedom and fulness our view of the circumstances and put forward, unfettered by party, the solution we propose; but when it comes to effective work, agriculturists in the country must realise, and I think we do ill if we do not make it plain, that it can only be the Government of the day, which has control of the Treasury, which can effect any material results.
      I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman and the Department are proceeding steadily with the development of agricultural research. However difficult our problems in agriculture may be all agricultural opinion in Scotland, whether it is in the Highlands or in the

      621
      Lowlands, recognise more and more the necessity of research. One of the most difficult problems in front of these research bodies and the Department, and Parliament, is how to find machinery not only to make research effective in practical matters but to see that the results of research are put into plain, ordinary language, brought into the agricultural arena and into close touch with the practical man who is working his farm. I have watched with great interest the research work at Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow from the point of view of the practical man who wishes to have a remedy for the immediate circumstances of the time. From the research man's point of view it is clear that, in order to produce effective remedies for any of our agricultural problems, he must be given time. It is therefore essential that the agriculturist should recognise that in many cases he cannot look for immediate results. At the same time, the farmer should be encouraged to visit these institutions and realise how useful the work can be to him, but with this warning. Take the very interesting experiments carried out in connection with pigs. It is quite clear that we cannot get real results from one year's work. It must take three or four years, and the danger of the practical man when visiting these institutions and seeing that by an injection of iodine into the pig an enormous improvement takes place, is this, that he might probably do the same thing at home with disastrous results. With that caveat I still urge that these research stations should open their doors and encourage agriculturists to go and see what they are doing.
      There is one other aspect of the work to which I desire to call attention, and that is the increasing number of classes which are being arranged throughout the countryside of a more elementary character, but which are of infinite value to the farm manager and the working ploughman and the cattleman. Unless those who are associated with these research stations interest themselves not only in the classrooms in our great centres like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, but are prepared to get into close touch with those who are actually working on the countryside, we shall fail to do what is really required. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether, in connection with this research work, he is satisfied
      622
      that everything is being done which should be done to encourage the universities to direct and train young men and women in research work. I confess to a sense of disappointment in the fact that it is difficult to obtain the services of first-class research workers. It may be that some of these posts are not really attractive enough to bring in the research worker, and, if that is so, it is the duty of the Department to do their utmost to encourage those who are dealing with young men and women in their early educative processes to turn their minds in a greater degree towards the possibility of filling these posts. It may be possible to fill some of these posts before long, but it is a matter which calls for the attention of the education authorities, our schools and universities.
      I was glad to hear that in land drainage, both arterial and field, progress is being made. Now that the conditions of the money grant have been materially improved I understand that the Department will be able to deal with applications without having hanging over their heads the dread of the supply being cut off at a certain time. That is a matter upon which I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. We shall watch the progress of the arterial work with interest. I do not suppose we shall see immediate results, but I hope the surveys are proceeding at the moment. There was one other aspect upon which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch, and that is the problem of the survey of the soil in different parts of the country. This question was raised by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and some progress has been made. I am satisfied, from such work as I have seen under the scheme, that very material results can be achieved, with a great saving to individual farmers if they possessed a know-ledge of what their soil actually requires. There have been cases where farmers have been spending money upon certain forms of fertilisers which was really money thrown away, and other cases where obviously they should have limed the soil.
      If, eventually, we can have maps of our country available for those who are entering into farms, it will be of the greatest assistance. I have been struck by the fact that in the case of farms

      623
      which change hands from time to time a new tenant coming in has no real practical knowledge of the conditions of working on that farm during the period immediately preceding his tenancy, and he certainly has no record which goes back for any length of time. That, of course, does not apply to an established estate where a factor has been keeping those records in the estate office, but quite obviously, however skilled a tenant may be, if he goes into the farm with only such slight information as he may obtain from conversation with the outgoing tenant, he has no working principle upon which to act. Therefore, I urge that this survey system of ascertaining the qualities of the soil should be proceeded with, and that farmers in the various districts should be encouraged to try out these surveys. It may well be that from a survey of a particular part of a field one may leap to conclusions which do not apply to the whole of that field, but these matters can only be ascertained by accurate tests carried out in a practical manner. I know that the Department has been endeavouring to proceed on those lines and I trust that the agricultural community will take note of what is being done and will render assistance in enlarging those experiments.
      When we come to consider the soil, and the best uses of the soil, we are brought face to face with the problem of arable farming. Everybody knows that arable farming to-day is a very difficult proposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State drew attention to the problem of potato growing in Scotland. I think he was right in saying—at any rate it applies in a good many cases—that some farmers were growing classes of potatoes which were not of keeping quality; that they dosed the land heavily with manure in order to obtain a large crop, and were surprised if the general public did not appreciate the results. That may be hard criticism, but I know from personal experience that it has paid me better to grow certain classes of potatoes with less yield but of higher quality than others and, while I find my neighbours around me with their pits full of potatoes, I am happy to think that I have not any at the present time. That does not go to show that I received for those potatoes the amount of remuneration which would
      624
      really pay for growing those crops but of this I am certain that, whether it be in potatoes or in wool, more attention must be paid by the farming industry to the careful grading and cleaning of the material in submitting it to the public.
      I think that one of the most interesting features in Scotland is the increased and extending interest in co-operative methods. We in Scotland, over a long period of years, have been preaching this system of agricultural co-operation. It has been a long and uphill task but to-day we feel that, in such things as the milk pool and the wool growers' association, we are proceeding on sound lines. At the present time in Scotland we are endeavouring to make an arrangement to deal with potatoes. Of course, a great deal depends upon the loyalty of those who enter into these arrangements. I have a firm belief that if these measures are to have success, it must come from an earnest appreciation of their necessity by the rank and file of those in the business but it is necessary that those who speak on agricultural matters either in the House of Commons or outside it, should point the way and encourage the agricultural community, and interest them in these projects. It may well be that in order to bring such an arrangement as I have mentioned to a proper consummation, it would be only right that the Department should lend financial assistance, but I hope that from all parts of this Committee and throughout Scotland encouragement will be given to the formation of this association for the better marketing of one of our main crops, namely, the potato crop, and that from such an arrangement will result greater stability in employment and greater security for the farmers generally.
      In this matter, of course, controversy is inevitable when you come to speak of the association between the farmers and the middlemen. I do not think that there is a necessity for the great number of middlemen existing in this industry to-day nor do I think that all their interest and experience need be lost if we change to new systems. I think we must endeavour to bridge the gulf and make use of the knowledge and experience which these men, no doubt, possess. Looking at agriculture on broad lines I have always conceived that it was the duty of the Department to concern itself primarily with the larger aspects of the question—with re-

      625
      search work, with obtaining information, with linking up the various bodies in Scotland and such bodies as the Empire Marketing Board—but, of course, in addition to that, we in Scotland are faced with the problem of developing land settlement. I do not wish to go at great length into that problem at present, beyond saying that when I was responsible I pursued a general steady policy of land settlement. I was more concerned with seeing that the individuals who were placed upon holdings had a reasonable and fair opportunity of making a decent living, than of multiplying numbers without regard to the settlers themselves.
      I observe signs of increased activity in the Department in this direction and I am a little disturbed about some of the ventures which are being made. I think one of the difficulties in the way of land settlement, particularly in the outer islands, is the fact that we have taken a great amount of the possible land on which it is at all likely that individuals will be able to make a living, even of the barest kind, and in the process of doing so we have, in fact, obliterated the moderate-sized farm and the possibility of an example being set by people working with a good class of stock. We have obliterated the possibility, certainly in these outer islands, of showing an example of the progress which can be made by any competent and advancing agricultural mind. If a man in those outer islands is progressive and has ambition quite obviously he cannot find scope for it in those islands but has to go elsewhere. I wish to question the Under-Secretary particularly in regard to some of the more recent efforts at land settlement in the outer islands. I see for instance in the report that Luskentyre has been acquired and I wish to know the terms upon which it has been acquired or whether those terms have yet been concluded, and what are the ideas of the Department for developing that property?
      I have visited these islands and while I do not set myself up to speak dogmatically upon agricultural affairs, yet I am convinced, from such inquiries as I have made on the spot, that that particular property is perhaps the least suitable of any which could be acquired for development. Any low land which there is upon it is of an extremely sandy nature. If the surface of the land is
      626
      broken unless the greatest care is taken it becomes sand, and, as far as I understand it, the unfortunate people who go into holdings on that property will not be able to obtain peats for fuel or sea-wrack for the development of the soil. Nor is there any opportunity for them on that estate to combine fishing with their other activities, and anybody acquainted with the problem knows that it is often essential that there should be this combination. I am anxious not to appear to critical, but I think the money which has been spent upon this property, whatever the amount may be, would have been infinitely better spent elsewhere and in other circumstances. I think it is the height of folly to put people down in a place which cannot in the end be developed effectively. If it is to be administered by the Department for the next three or five years, if they have spent a large sum of money in acquiring sheep which they hope during that period will become acclimatised on this property, it may be an amusing experiment to the Under-Secretary of State and those with whom he is working, and it will be watched with interest by those of us who regard it as the height of folly.
      On the matter of stock, I agree that, whatever we may be able to do in the matter of cereals, our country must be very largely a stock-producing country, and it is essential that we should keep our strains clean, and use the best possible stock. I was a little disturbed to hear from the outer islands that—no doubt impelled by the butchers who go there to buy young stock—an effort was being made to change from the Highland breed to a cross breed, and to introduce either shorthorns or black Angus.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Or polled Angus.
      Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, anyone who has been in the Western Isles recognises that the small calf which is found there, very stunted and underfed, without the early development which is found upon the mainland, is not attractive to the butcher who goes out there to buy. He says to these people, "If you would bring in another cross, we will pay you far more for the results." That might be, as a very temporary matter, but if, as I fear would happen, they were to sell their best Highland cattle and

      627
      kept some cross-bred heifer and bred again from that, there would be much chaos, and at the end in the Western Islands it would be to the great detriment of the whole community. I hope that, whatever experiments may be made in this matter, they will be very careful and tentative, and that the most careful restriction will be placed on the keeping of the cross-breed if that were permitted. The Government, of course, have stud farms, and they purchase from time to time considerable numbers of bulls and rams for the improvement of stock. It is generally agreed that that work has been satisfactory, and has led to a great improvement in the general stock throughout the country.
      I believe that more and more it will be found that, if the Department could hire better rams and bulls from those who breed the best class of stock, even in reduced numbers, we would still further raise the quality. We have reached at the present time a certain stage of improvement, but unless the crofter communities, and unless the Department in conjunction with them, are able to send from time to time really high class sires and rams, we will see stagnation in improvement which will be unfortunate. Therefore, I hope that the interest in future in these matters will be directed towards improving the quality. I trust that the educative side of agriculture will be carefully developed and supported. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty drew attention to the fact that he thought there was a reduction in the grant for education. I think that is not in fact really so, but the Under-Secretary will no doubt be able to inform us later on.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The agricultural education grant for this year is £72,000; last year it was £80,000.
      Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that that is the case, but I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would confirm what I believe is the case. I trust that my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary will have as great pleasure in dealing with the Department and with these problems that I had when I was responsible to this House.
      Mr. WESTWOOD: I would not have intervened but for the point which has been referred to by the late Secretary
      628
      of State. My interest in education is well known, and if there had been a decrease in the amount of money available for agricultural education, I should certainly have lodged a protest and taken action. It will be found on referring to the Estimates, that although in 1929 the agricultural education grant was £80,000 and in 1930 is £72,000, the reduction is in maintenance and the amount of money set aside for travelling expenses. If a research station or school is built in connection with general education, that is not covered by annual expenditure. I believe that that is the real explanation of this decrease.
      There has been a plea in this House for years by both sides that the education funds of Scotland should bear some responsibility for agricultural education. I have always claimed that there should be a closer relationship between the Education Department and the Department of Agriculture. We are not doing enough in agricultural education. In England, there are two farms directly under the control of education authorities, and four under the joint control of education authorities. I would like to see a further development on that line in Scotland. Education authorities should have a closer relationship with agricultural colleges, so that we could get more and more agricultural education in Scotland. A minute has been issued dealing with the amount of money available for agricultural colleges, and it has been favourably received except by one of the counties, but that happens to be more than balanced by the larger county of which I share the representation; and any reduction that there might have been in the provision for other education is more than made good by the additional £3,000 or £4,000 which will be available during the next few years for agricultural colleges.
      I would like to see a questionnaire issued by either the Department of Agriculture or the Education Department asking for a return of the schemes of work in which education authorities are engaged, either in primary schools or in agricultural colleges, and in the sending out of lecturers and teachers to rural areas for the purpose of giving agricultural education. I would like this questionnaire to be sent out to the authorities so that we can get an actual return of the work which is being done in

      629
      agricultural education. The gratitude of hon. Members on all sides is due to the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation in Scotland, which was set up in October last year, for so speedily having done their work. As one Member, I want to thank them for the speedy, effective and efficient way in which they have dealt with the problems which were referred to them, and to the able Report which they have issued for our information. I hope that the Government and all parties will take an active interest in considering that Report.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Members in all parts of the Committee will agree with the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) in welcoming heartily the Report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation as one of the best features of the administration of the Secretary of State in relation to agriculture. This is a subject the treatment of which was long overdue. The views of practical men who have considered this question, and who are able to make practical suggestions, ought to carry great weight, and I hope that the Secretary of State intends at the earliest moment to put into effect a number of their recommendations, and particularly to keep in view that it is essential that a substantial grant should be available if any system of co-operation is to be carried out successfully. The sum of £1,000,000 which is suggested in the Report is not by any means too large. What is important in the Report is that it brings out very clearly, the changes that have taken place in our marketing system within recent years, and the necessity for the individual farmer taking steps to co-operate with others if he is to keep up with the progress of the times. Para graph 70 of the Report makes special reference to the fact that
      "The whole marketing system in agricultural produce is undergoing a rapid development, the effect of which is to place the individual farmer who conducts his buying and selling independently at a much more serious disadvantage than he was in the past. On the supply side, amalgamations and combinations are being effected rapidly and the process has every indication of growing. Whatever advantages that may bring in the way of eliminating unnecessary competition, there can be no doubt that the individual farmer will be in a weaker position as a buyer. On the marketing side, he is faced by a growth of combination amongst the producers and ex-
      630
      porters in other countries who enter into competition with him in the markets of this country."
      It is essential therefore that organisation on a large scale should be created by the farmers, and that they should have substantial financial assistance. Such organisation will also enable them to make a
      "considerable reduction of the waste of transport which is such a serious item of cost in our present unorganised system of marketing, and proper grading would be of great value to the distributive trade and to the consumer."
      There is also a point in the Report to which I desire to draw attention with reference to the need for eliminating the extraordinary waste which exists to-day in the handling of produce. In paragraph 74, the Report points out
      "It is notorious that in certain farm products there is a great deal of unnecessary dealing at a considerable cost to both producers and consumers. These dealings ought to be eliminated."
      6.0 p.m.
      We are all familiar with the number of stages through which produce passes between the producer and the consumer, which eventually forces upon the consumer the necessity of paying a much higher price for the commodities than he might otherwise have had to pay. Another important suggestion in this Report provides for a new form of agricultural charge by co-operative societies over merchandise in possession of their members. The position to-day under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, is that it is practically inoperative. In the case of Part II, which deals with short-term credits, that is largely due to the fact that the agricultural charge which has been created under the Act, which involves placing the produce in possession of the borrowing Co-operative Association, cannot be put into effect. It is necessary that some modification should be made in order to create a valid charge and enable Part II of the Act to be carried into effect.
      I would also urge upon the Secretary of State that immediate steps should be taken to deal with the situation created under Part I of this Act. It is not enough for him to gay that he has been considering how to set it going. We are dealing with a very serious injustice to Scottish farmers as compared with farmers in England. The English Act of 1928 provided for the

      631
      formation of an Agricultural Corporation, the Government undertaking to make contributions to the corporation in order to form a guarantee fund equal to the amount of the share capital of the corporation, no interest to be charged on these contributions for a period of 60 years. In England all the banks, with one exception, have subscribed the requisite amount of capital. Between the date when the Act came into full working order, 14th January, 1929, and the 30th April this year, no less than £5,000,000 had been issued in loans to English agriculturists, and a further considerable amount is subject to pending agreement. That puts English farmers in a very advantageous position, such as we ought to see our Scottish farmers also placed in. How can that be done? The Under-Secretary asks, "How can we coerce the banks?" Surely we can make some further effort, make an appeal to other organisations, such as co-operative bodies, insurance societies and the like, which might be prepared to assist in enabling this part of the Act to be put into operation.
      There is another suggestion which I made the other day in a question across the Floor of the House. When four of the principal Scottish banks are willing to come in and subscribe £15,000 each, why could we not start off the scheme with the help of those banks until we are in a position to secure further capital; or, alternatively, why should it not be possible for a branch of the English Corporation to be formed in Scotland? I am sure the hon. Member would be the first to respond to an appeal that some further effort should be made to deal with the situation.
      In listening to the statement made by the Secretary of State I was sorry to note that he seemed to have no due appreciation of the very serious shadow which is at present lying over arable farming in Scotland. A serious crisis has come upon the industry, and there is a heavy responsibility on the Government of the day and, in view of the fact that they are a minority Government, a responsibility also upon the Members of all parties to help to restore its prosperity. I need not remind the Under-Secretary of the series of remarkable demonstrations which have taken place all over Scotland during the last few months.
      632
      There was this remarkable feature about them, that they embraced all the agricultural interests—landowners, farmers, small landholders, farm workers, and even some of the urban interests were associated with it. A second feature about these demonstrations was that they were entirely non-political. The farmers were out to secure fair play and were anxious that serious efforts should be made to re-establish this industry, which is of first importance to the country, upon sound foundations. In the county which I have the honour to represent, East Fife, an important centre of arable farming, we had a very large demonstration and expression was given to the serious situation in fitting terms. I want the hon. Gentleman to realise that we are dealing here with hard facts, which affect a very large section of the industry.
      I notice that the Secretary of State began by referring to the fact that the livestock industry in Scotland would always be predominant, but I want him to realise that arable farming is very important too, exceedingly important not only from the point of view of the produce raised but also of the employment which it finds. In arable farming districts a very much larger number of workers find employment, and they are the finest and most skilful agricultural workers in the world. In putting forward our case here we are representing a very large section of our population who are looking to the Government not only to carry out the administrative duties of the Department of Agriculture but also to have special regard to the situation created through the serious slump in the price of cereals and of potatoes and, in Scotland particularly, of oats. A communication which I had the other day from a leading agriculturist puts the need for an agreed policy. Speaking of the necessity for continuity in our national agricultural policy, he said:
      "We feel that without a common agreement as to the remedy there would never be any stability in agricultural conditions. It would be unfortunate to have one party making certain arrangements in relation to such a business as agriculture, and, on a change of Government, another party overturning or altering them. Agriculture, from its very nature, must have continuity of policy. If it cannot have this it might be better to leave it alone to sink or swim on its own merits."
      That is the point of view on which those of us who have been asking for a confer-

      633
      ence of the three parties in the House have always based our case. This question should not be regarded from the point of view of party advantage but from the standpoint of securing an agreed policy for the industry, thus enabling farmers to know where they are. At the present moment many are going on for another season in the hope that things may get better, but they want at least some indication of what the Government's intentions are. While facing the possible losses of another season they want to know what action is to be taken, and they are satisfied, and I think they are right, that we have only to get men of good sense together to discuss practical proposals and some remedy will be evolved which while not penalising the general consumers will be fair to the industry itself.
      The present depression is due, of course, to various factors, but so far as Scotland is concerned there is no doubt that inadequate provision was made for marketing following upon the very heavy crops of last year and that a considerable amount of depression has been caused by the importation of subsidised German oats. It would not be in order for me to discuss now the method which might be adopted to deal with the situation, but I would point out that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in a memo which they issued to me, said:
      "The price of oats in this country at the present time is less than it was before the War and there is no doubt that while the large crop is partly responsible the low price is due in some measure to German imports."
      The German import bond system was established in 1894, revised again in 1925, and has been carried out over a period of years, but I submit that under the terms of the 1924 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Germany we ought to be in a position to put forward a case for action. The protocol of the Treaty says:
      "The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation signed this day, being based on the principle of the most favoured nation, both parties to the Treaty undertake to give the widest possible interpretation to that principle. In particular,"
      this is the important reservation:
      "while maintaining their right to take appropriate measures to preserve their own industries, they undertake to abstain from using their respective Customs tariffs
      634
      or any other charges as a means of discrimination against the trade of the other and to give sympathetic consideration to any cases which may be brought to their notice in which, as a result of the rates of Customs duties or charges any such discrimination can be shown to have arisen."
      There is a case which ought to be made under the Treaty, and which has not yet been made by the Government, in regard to the importation of these oats under the import bond system. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Under-Secretary to see that further steps are taken to try to bring home to the German Government the effect this system has had upon our industry and to see that we exercise our right under that Treaty to take appropriate action to preserve our own industries, including this particular industry.
      Of course, there are other reasons for the depression. Reference has been made to the potato trade, also a very important industry in the Division which I have the honour to represent. There was a heavy production of potatoes last season, but if I were to try to extract any consolation from the speeches made from the Government benches to-day, I should have to go to the potato producers in my Division and tell them that all the Government have to say is this: "You are producing the wrong type of potato, and the public have got such a poor appreciation of your wares that they prefer to pay an enormous additional price for imported potatoes." I do not think that is a correct statement of the facts. There is, undoubtedly, a certain quantity of potatoes which have been grown which are not fit for table use, and a great deal could be done in the selection of the best table quality and a better class of potato. But there are large quantities of first-class quality which could be and ought to be used for domestic consumption, and which are to-day unsaleable. I am quite satisfied that the effect of this importation has been to create a very serious difficulty. I can see myself nothing that would be more in the interests of the consumers of this country than that they should be asked to consume home-produced articles which are very much cheaper and better articles than those expensive foreign potatoes to which reference was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think there is considerable justification for the view

      635
      that the market has been spoiled by the effect of such importation.
      I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether his Department can assist us more with regard to this particular question both as to the disposal of surplus and in regard to export. I have a memorandum from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on the question of the disposal of surplus potatoes—including the coarser grades not suitable for domestic consumption—for use in farina mills or for commercial spirit. I have here the memorandum in which the Department points out that if all these inferior low-grade potatoes could be kept out of the market the effect of surplus supplies of good ware potatoes would probably only be felt in very exceptional years. The memorandum also points out that there are ample means for the disposal of surplus potatoes in this country if they were made available at a manufacturing price of somewhere about 25s. per ton. That, of course, represents only a limited portion of the potatoes which on occasions of surplus might be available for such purposes, the larger quantity being sold for other uses. In conclusion they point out in this memorandum that:
      "The problem seems to be the creation of two distinct markets for potatoes with two distinct price levels, one for ware and the other for manufacturing purposes. That is following the milk precedent."
      I throw out that suggestion as a practical one which might be looked into.
      With regard to the export trade, I have been asked by potato growers in my Division whether the Government cannot make a further effort to secure outlet especially in a season like this when there is such a large surplus. Again, I turn to the Report, which shows that 973 certificates were issued to 31 countries for export during the past year. No doubt a very large proportion of those certificates will represent certificates for seed potatoes which are going out to many countries. I would suggest that here there is Toom for further investigation, and that a further effort should be made to secure a good market for our ware potatoes in countries in which the price at the present moment is so very much higher. In the case of America and Canada there is an enormous price being paid for potatoes, and
      636
      yet that market is closed to us on the score of risk of disease. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that, at the present moment, we are importing potatoes from many countries, and the certificates which are issued are regarded as sufficient to certify purity and absence of disease; while on the other hand these other countries have declined to take our potatoes because they are not satisfied on that point. It is perfectly clear that you cannot have it both ways. If it is considered absolutely necessary to secure the producer against this danger in the one case, then it ought to be made effective in the other case, where risk of disease also arises from the large quantities imported.
      I would like to say a word or two upon the question of the agricultural worker, whose interests are so much bound up with the question which we are discussing there to-day of what can be done to assist agriculture. I represent a very large number of agricultural workers who are employed in arable farming districts, and there is no doubt, that there are many indications that a number of them are likely to be thrown out of employment, and some of them already have been thrown out of work. It is not a sound policy that our best agricultural workers should find it impossible to obtain employment in arable areas and have to apply for opportunities else where. That is having a very serious effect upon unemployment, because the agricultural worker is generally a good man, and when lie is thrown out of his own employment it often means that he displaces some other person. The only effect of that is to intensify unemployment in urban districts. I hope it will be kept in mind that a policy of that kind is not calculated to secure the best interests of the country, if it has the effect of turning a great many of our agricultural workers off the land instead of utilising them for arable farming.
      I should like to appeal, in conclusion, to the Department to try to give the farmers a little more assistance at a time when they are exceedingly concerned about their immediate future. There are some remedies which have been suggested which are not really helpful at all. Proposals were put forward some years ago by the Corn Production Act, and the experience that we had of

      637
      that Act proved how futile it was to deal with this problem by means of subsidies. It was eventually repealed, but it led to a complete disorganisation, and it was shown very clearly that subsidies in most cases went to rent, and that the agriculturists got no real advantage. We want a sympathetic administration. We want scientific research, about which much has been said already. We want to see the best use made of the opportunities for agricultural education, and in this connection I would point out that the Report shows that of the scholarships given through the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, 31 went to the children of farm workers, or to farm workers themselves, showing how well equipped these classes are to take full advantage of such education.
      We want our farmers and agriculturists to feel that we wish to help and not to cramp their efforts. I believe that the Scottish farmers are the best farmers in the world, and that it is undesirable to limit their initiative and energy. At a time when they are suffering so severely, they look to the Government of the day to consider their position fairly, and to afford them assistance where assistance can be rightly rendered, and at least to give them a fair field in which to work out their own destinies and secure fair play for them in competition with others.
      Earl of DALKEITH: I think there will be general satisfaction that a plain statement by the Secretary of State on the report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation has just been published. The opinions and recommendations of this Committee are of very great importance. Agricultural people, especially those most interested in marketing organisations, will want to know as soon as possible the proposals of the Government, and in which direction they are favourable to those recommendations. The report has been in their hands for a considerable time, and any delay in making an announcement will hold up all further plans for better organisation that may be contemplated. There will be a keen interest as to the attitude of the Government in regard to the first proposal which is to sanction 1,000,000 credit.
      There are many of those recommendations which will not require any legislation, and it is satisfactory to hear that
      638
      the Secretary of State is already directing his consideration to that question. The difficulty of financing schemes of organisation in their initial stages is emphasised in the report, and should be overcome by a guarantee to recognised banks of loans and overdrafts to approved agricultural co-operative societies. There is to-day a great move in the direction of organising these efforts, and what is required during the initial stages is greater security. I hope that the Government will pay special attention to assistance in this direction. There should be extremely little risk attached to such a credit being drawn on, and it would be difficult to-day to find a more natural object, and although it is of importance, one must not concentrate entirely on co-operation.
      The report which has just been published makes a most definite reference to the danger of uncontrolled imports. I find on page 41, in paragraph 116, a reference to the necessity of preventing the fluctuation of prices by reason of uncontrolled imports. It is stated that, if our markets are to be flooded by produce from overseas, any efforts at making farming pay by better marketing will be of little use. The outstanding feature of the last 12 months has been the failure of the Government to realise in time, or to realise at all, the consequences of these increasing imports, and their refusal to consider this problem on its own merits. I have listened time after time to the rebuke from the Government Benches that we were unable to do more to cure the difficulties of agriculture in five years, and to the excuse that they could not be expected to deal with this problem and solve its difficulties in a few months.
      I would point out that this attitude of the Government clearly shows that they are unable to appreciate the real importance of the sudden inflow of subsidised oats. Starting at an awkward season of the year, and increasing rapidly to enormous proportions, it really needed drastic and immediate attention. It appears that definite or decisive action involving any party risk is becoming more and more unwelcome in this House, and the present Government, even more than previous Governments, seem to be too scared to take any possibly unusual though obvious course to help their own people. They have no justification for

      639
      blaming previous administrations for a crisis which only became acute during their own term of office. During the Debate last Autumn, I referred to the possibility of Czechoslovakia following the example of Germany, and the Government will no doubt have seen that proposals are now coming forward from that country under which Scotland will be made to suffer in the same way from imports of barley next year as we have this year.
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): I have referred to the paragraph mentioned, by the Noble Lord, and I find that it says:
      "The steps to be taken to secure control of imports are a matter outside our remit"—
      and the Committee go on to point out that:
      "it is necessary for the health of the agricultural industry to prevent the fluctuation of prices by uncontrolled imports."
      That is a point of administration, but, in relation to importation, as I understand the Noble Lord's argument, his proposal would need legislation.
      Earl of DALKEITH: I am sorry if I have transgressed. Lately, there has been a recurring demand for a conference of all parties. I have not heard what is the attitude of the Secretary of State to-wards it, but surely, while all the actions of the Government and of their Liberal supporters favour an open door to foreign imports, there would be little use in holding an all-party conference. As soon as they show a change of spirit and of policy, and a determination to give our own producers a preference, or at any rate an equal opportunity in competing with the foreigner, it will not be difficult then for any non-party conference to settle some terms for useful agreement. The farming community to-day are showing the liveliest appreciation of recent proposals from an independent source in favour of British and Empire products, and with it seems to have come a far better understanding by townspeople of present farming difficulties and sympathy towards them.
      People often overlook other directions in which employment on the land is possible. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, in his concluding remarks in the Debate on unem-
      640
      ployment last Monday, said that we should have to fall back upon agriculture and upon the land generally for solving the unemployment problem. Much attention has been drawn to some of these imports, but very little reference has been made to the imports of foreign softwoods. I do not wish to elaborate this question of timber to-day, but, as it affords an opportunity for employment on the land in Scotland, I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer to it. There is a very large field indeed for employment in planting and forestry. A large number of individuals, as well as the Forestry Commission, are endeavouring to do what they can in this respect. I would ask the Under-Secretary to draw the attention of his colleagues to the increasing imports of softwoods, some of which are produced under conditions which would not be allowed in this country, such, for instance, as those in Russia, and to consider whether home forestry cannot be encouraged more as against these imports from foreign countries. When it is impossible to sell timber in the home market, it is impossible to give the employment in planting that so many people would desire. It also reduces employment in the home timber trade and greatly reduces the transport of timber on the home railways. I would like to say a word also about employment in connection with the administration of the Rural Housing Act. There is a good opportunity for maintaining—
      The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Noble Lord could show me where in the Estimate the question of rural housing comes in. I think I have seen it somewhere, but cannot put my finger on it at the moment.
      Mr. JOHNSTON: May I point out that that subject would come more properly under the Vote for the Department of Health?
      Earl of DALKEITH: I thought that I might refer to the employment which is being given in connection with the Rural Housing Act, and ask the Minister for an assurance that that Act will be continued.
      The CHAIRMAN: I said that I thought I had seen it somewhere, and I find that it is in the Vote for the Department of Health.
      Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: On that point, of Order. Although it is

      641
      true that we cannot discuss housing under the Rural Housing Act, I submit that it is possible to discuss the large amount of housing which is going on under the Act of 1911, under schemes which are administered by the Department of Agriculture.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not raise a new point. That was not the point on which the Noble Lord was speaking. We must take one point at a time.
      Earl of DALKEITH: The Secretary of State made reference to schemes under the Land Drainage Act for the South of Scotland. I wonder if we could have some information with regard to the schemes for the Annan and the Nith which he mentioned. Under the land drainage grants, much useful employment is now being given, and I would ask if early information could be given in future with regard to this policy. It is most important that such information should be available early in the year, in order that more schemes may be carried out at those seasons when employment in other directions is most slack.
      Then I should like to ask the Under-Secretary one or two questions with regard to the administration of small holdings. I understand that, in the transfer of loans from existing holders, they can be assigned to the landlord, but not to incoming holders. Is it considered that the landlord alone offers good security, or is there any other reason? Instances have cropped up lately where, in a group of small holdings, difficulty has arisen with regard to water supply. That is quite a natural difficulty, and one that it is not always easy to avoid. In the case of combined water supplies for a group of holdings, it appears that there are not always in the original lease proper agreements with the new holder for their maintenance. This can be a serious hardship on individual holders, and I have brought to the notice of the Department a case from the parish of Ancrum, in my own constituency, to which I trust they will be able to give sympathetic attention and active help. The position seems to be unsound, because, although the Department of Agriculture creates all holdings, and would naturally be responsible, it is able to
      642
      disclaim all responsibility for any trouble that arises later on. I think that this is an important point which should be considered in future schemes, and that it is only a fair obligation to try to make amends for the mistakes which have been made under existing schemes.
      I should like to make one reference to animal diseases, in regard to which hope that progress has been made by the Department during the last 12 months. It is in regard to a small though very infectious disease, nomely that of sheep scab. In reply to a question which I put a few days ago, I was informed that during the past 12 months there have only been 29 cases in Scotland, as compared with 294 in England and 297 in Wales. In view of these figures, I should like the Secretary of State to counteract the impression which is often spread that it is sheep from Scoltand which are most affected by this disease. In the Border counties, especially, very great care is taken in looking after the stock and keeping them free from disease, and my reason for asking that attention should be given to this matter is that much harm can be done in trying to sell sheep on this side of the Border when that wrong impression is so falsely spread. I would ask the Minister if he is prepared to consider further the policy of preventing the movement of sheep from a farm or holding upon which an outbreak of scab has occurred, so as to prevent the spread of infection into clean country. Many people point to weakness in the present regulations, and consider that they lead to hardship and expense in cases where the area is very clean.
      I would also ask the Under-Secretary to draw the attention of his colleagues to the very slow progress that is being made in Border counties in response to the demand of scattered agricultural communities for the provision of more rural telephone exchanges and call offices. I understand that provision was made for these a year ago, but that, although large numbers of people employed on the engineering staff of the Post Office have been paid off who might have been employed on this useful work, nothing has been done. In conclusion, may I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the very serious harm that is being

      643
      done by the depletion of the capital available for agricultural land, and by the high and increasing taxation, which is having a most serious effect upon agricultural employment and upon employment of all kinds connected with the land. If the Government wish owners who are responsible for employment in connection with the land to carry out their obligations to the full, I feel sure that they cannot realise how severe the burden on land actually is.
      Mr. SINKINSON: I have to compliment the Secretary of State on his speech and on the comprehensive report that we have had. I look upon the Department of Agriculture as, in the not very distant future, the greatest Department in the country. I never think of Scotland without thinking what a glorious country we have, fertile, not over-populated, a place where experiments, research and all sorts of things in connection with the production of food in all its branches, livestock, cereals and otherwise, can be carried out. The Department certainly has a great and a very interesting future before it. One point I should like to elaborate is that of dairy-farming. About the year 1865, Danes were sent over here to be taught dairy-farming, and what the Danish Government did for their dairy farmers brought them to the greatest prominence of any people in the agricultural world. They were taught their profession in Scotland and they went, back home and developed it with Government assistance, and they now have a sale in this country of dairy produce of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000. We have hundreds of thousands of acres in Scotland which are capable of finer dairy-farming than in any country in the world. Owing to the climate, we have the finest fibre in wool that can be produced and, of course, there is the production of mutton. This kind of thing could be encouraged by the Department and, if it goes on the plan that Members of this side of the House would like to see, it would certainly give it such encouragement, that instead of purchasing £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 worth of produce from other countries, we shall find employment for scores of thousands of people in this production. In the last year something like 48,000 acres of land have gone out of cultivation. It is deplorable to think that a fertile country
      644
      like Scotland should have land going out of cultivation, and the Department should certainly see to it that some mass attack is made to get our land back to production.
      The right hon. Gentleman said they had purchased 12,000 acres for holdings. I should be interested to know what was paid for land. We have heard hon. Members opposite who are farmers. How they can be farmers and can be here I do not know. The farmers I know are very industrious men, and they could not be in this House at the same time. We have holdings in my constituency, and the estate is rated by the Department. I cannot say at the moment exactly how many holdings there are but, according to the report for 1928, we are paying £1,900 a year to some individual who belongs to the estate. I also find in the report that that has been taken over for a matter of 250 years. This is one of the primary burdens on agriculture. When I listen to hon. Members opposite who are farmers, who might have 4,000 acres, or less or more, I wonder if they are paying £1 an acre in rent, because the rent of a 4,000 acre farm would be £4,000 a year. Rent is a serious consideration, and that is one reason why I should like to ask what is paid for these 12,000 acres. I hope the Department will go on and get more people on to the land by means of small holdings.
      Mr. BOOTHBY: There is very little fresh material that can possibly be discussed with any advantage to-day. The Secretary of State has been hatching out an agricultural policy of some sort or another for 12 months, so he assures us, but so far, although we have asked him over and over again what it was, we have not received any answer. Some of us are beginning to think he has been sitting, quite unwittingly and in good faith, on a china egg all the time, because nothing productive has happened. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether lie could now, quietly, in Committee, when tempers are not raised, and it is not like Question Time, give us some indication when it likely that a more active and constructive agricultural policy may be announced, because in these Estimates there is not a single original item of expenditure proposed.
      The right hon. Gentleman was very interesting in one part of his speech. He

      645
      admitted that the importation of potatoes and cereals had been having a very detrimental effect on agriculture North of the Tweed, and we all know that, whatever our fiscal views may be. It would be out of order to make a fighting. Protectionist speech, but I should like to ask what the Government propose to do in order to deal with this problem of dumped imports of cereals and potatoes, and how they propose to stimulate the production of cereals and potatoes, without which I do not think agriculture in Scotland can survive. You cannot stimulate the production of these vital cereals, oats and barley, and potatoes, unless somehow or other we can arrange for the farmer to get a price which will give him some profit at the end of the year. For the last two or three years the losses sustained by Scottish farmers on cereals and potatoes have been prodigious, and they cannot go on year after year selling at a price which will not anything like compensate for the cost of production. If prices continue to be inadequate and fail to remunerate the farmer, more and more land will go down to grass, as it is going down to grass every month, acre by acre, and the drift of the agricultural workers to swell the ranks of the unemployed in the towns will increase.
      The whole problem of agriculture revolves around prices. I should be the first to admit that the most devastating factor, and I think the principal cause of the prevailing agricultural depression has been the world fall in wholesale prices. It is certainly not the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but every step ought to be taken to try to counteract that world fall of prices which makes it so difficult for farmers to make a profit at present. It is more difficult in agriculture than in any other industry, because the gap is greater between the outlay and the realisation of the price of the goods that are produced.
      The question of import control has been mentioned. I should like to ask if the Government are going to make any experiment at all along those lines. I have always taken a great interest in this question, and I have always thought there were a great many arguments in favour of it as well as arguments against. I know the Under-Secretary has been a consistent and very powerful supporter
      646
      of the principle of controlling imports and that was, I think, the main factor in the policy of the Labour party at the last election.
      The CHAIRMAN: I could not permit the Under-Secretary to answer the question. The hon. Member has asked it, and he must leave it at that.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. BOOTHBY: I am grateful to you for having allowed me to ask the question, and I will leave it at that. I would rather like to know whether the hon. Gentleman would not consider this particularly with regard to potatoes at the present time, and also whether the Government are proposing to put into operation any scheme for a potato pool. If he could also give us any further information, if he has any, about any schemes for organised marketing through the co-operative societies or otherwise, I am sure hon. Members on this side of the Committee would be very interested. There is no doubt that the effective organisation on a co-operative or collective scale of agricultural produce is perhaps more important than anything else. So far we have had no constructive proposals from hon. or right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the Committee, and we on this side have a right to expect that they will make suggestions and proposals along those lines, because they have talked about it so much.
      One other point I would like to raise is milk policy. To-morrow a Bill will come up in this House on Report giving power to the education authorities to issue milk to the school children. I want to ask the Under-Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes or has in his mind any possible extension or development along those lines, and whether he does not think it would be possible to extend the consumption of milk by some method or other in Scotland; and, further, whether he is aware of the fact that the consumption of milk in this country is far lower than the consumption of milk in any other comparable civilised country in the world? That has a very disastrous effect upon the health of the population. Any administrative methods of which the hon. Gentleman could conceive to extend the consumption of milk so as to endeavour, at any rate, to achieve the consumption achieved in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany and, indeed, even in France and Belgium would be of the greatest assistance and value. Another

      647
      question I want to ask the hon. Gentleman is whether he is satisfied that the Merchandise Marks Act is being administered efficiently and satisfactorily, because my farmers are constantly complaining still that imported beef from abroad is being retailed in shops up and down the country as "prime Scotch beef."
      Mr. JOHNSTON: I shall be very glad if the hon. Member can give me a specific case of that. He is aware that the Marketing Committee set up by the Empire Marketing Board and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland have taken every possible step to trace these allegations. We have prosecuted, and if he can give us any specific cases in his own area we shall be glad.
      Mr. BOOTHBY: I have none at the moment, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to produce them now, but I will bring them to his attention. I merely point out that there is somewhat general complaint among the farmers in the north-east of Scotland on the subject, and I asked whether he himself was satisfied that the Act was being efficiently administered. If he is satisfied, then I for my part will be perfectly satisfied, too.
      One final point. We have heard a certain amount about transport. The most crying practical grievance in my constituency, at any rate, and, I think, in the whole of Scotland, is the condition of accommodation roads to farms. Nearly all the farms in Scotland have not got enough capital at their disposal to put accommodation roads to their farms into good order. The county authority will not take over these accommodation roads unless and until they are put into good order. Cannot the Under-Secretary for State do something to enable the county authorities to take over and look after the accommodation roads leading to farms, whatever their condition is at the present moment? There are many farms to my own practical knowledge where it is practically impossible to get a cart to or from the farms at all, the accommodation road is in such a state of disrepair and the farmer has not sufficient capital to put it into repair.
      Talking of capital and credit generally, does the hon. Gentleman really think it necessary to get these four Scottish banks to come in? Does he consider it
      648
      necessary, as the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) suggested, to appeal to insurance companies or any other private undertakings of that kind for the necessary money to complete and put into operation the Credits Act we passed last year? Why should he not go to the place where he ought to go to get the necessary accommodation—the Treasury? Surely the present administration has spent enough money wholly unproductively to justify a small amount of productive expenditure which would be negligible. He has got four of the banks in. He would only have to make up half from the Treasury, the amount the other four banks are unwilling to pay him, and he would be able to put the scheme into operation. It would not be lost. The security is good, and I appeal to him to go ahead with his present scheme, if he possibly can, on the basis of the four Scottish banks providing one half and the Treasury putting up the remainder. We would not lose by it, and we have had enough unproductive expenditure to justify the small outlay, which would cost the taxpayer nothing at all and be of great benefit to Scottish agriculture.
      Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I am rather surprised that we have heard nothing from hon. Members above the Gangway about the invitation extended by the Government last night to a three-party conference on agriculture. I do not know whether the Noble Lord who spoke was speaking on behalf of his party or of a number of Members of his party when he practically said that, unless the question of protection was allowed to rule the conference, we need not ask the Conservative party to join the conference. That is what I understood him to say. He actually allowed himself—I am sure it must have been by mistake—to misquote the report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation which has recently come into our hands. I should like to correct him by adding the words he omitted. He quoted paragraph 116, saying that several of the witnesses represented that the farmers could not organise marketing in this country so long as the markets are liable to be flooded by produce from abroad. There he stopped. I will read the next words, which are:
      "We do not share that view."

      649
      That rather alters the quotation the Noble Lord gave us. I must say that this invitation which has been issued by the Government does open up the possibilities of a new era for agriculture. Nowadays it is admitted on all hands that our great difficulties are more economic than political. It is practical difficulties of economics from which agriculture is chiefly suffering, and it seems to me regrettable that, in an emergency such as we are in to-day, the three parties cannot get together and knock out some policy of economics which is suitable for the condition of agriculture. We realise that each party starts from a somewhat different viewpoint, but there is no reason why we should not do now, as we have done before in the past when there is an emergency, drop our prejudices, our preconceived ideas, our inherited traditions and see if we cannot arrive at something which meets the requirements of the day.
      Reference has been made to that remarkable series of meetings held throughout Scotland, extraordinarily well organised, extraordinarily well attended. Who paid for them I do not know. They must have cost a great deal of money, but whoever paid for them, and whoever arranged the resolutions—similar resolutions, I believe—that were carried throughout the country, there is no question that one result of all those meetings has been to bring the position of the agricultural industry very clearly to the notice of the people generally, and, therefore, it, is a particularly favourable opportunity which the Government have chosen to issue its invitation to a three-party conference. Should this three-party conference be held, as I hope it will be, they will be faced at the outset by the difficulty of stating what really are the facts in connection with the various branches of this great industry. It is always, to my mind, one of the greatest difficulties to ascertain the facts. There are so many statements, charges, over-statements made with regard to agriculture that the ordinary mortal outside, who is trying to inform himself as to what are the facts, is often left in a very hazy condition of mind.
      I would like, very shortly, to refer to this question of bounty-fed oats with regard to which there have been more misstatements and more misunderstandings than any other question in the agricul-
      650
      tural industry which has been before the country recently. I have taken the trouble to get the figures supplied to me by the Board of Agriculture recently from which I ascertained roughly the following facts. We raise—speaking of Great Britain—something like 2,250,000 tons of oats a year in our awn country and we import, roughly, 400,000 tons a year. Now, taking the last 10 years, there are seven years during that period in which we imported more oats from abroad than we did last year, although I admit that last year the imports from Germany were greater and the imports from other countries were less. During the last 10 years there were only two years in which we imported less than last year but seven years in which we imported more. Now it is a very remarkable fact that in 1923, the year in which we imported the second highest amount from abroad, which was 134,000 tons more than we imported in 1929, we imported nothing from Germany that year at all.
      The only inference that anyone can draw from these figures is that there have been most misleading statements made with regard to the effect of the importations of German oats, which have been increasing during the last year or two. I am not putting it any higher than that. As to whether there is actually a bounty or how much that bounty amounts to, I have heard a variety of opinions expressed. I have endeavoured to work it out myself, and I am inclined to think that the exporter of German oats under the export bond system does get some advantage. What that advantage is I have not been able to arrive at accurately, but I think it is a great deal less than has been generally represented, and I am going to ask the Under-Secretary if he can give us some light on this. I am sure his Department have been engaged on the subject, and I, for one, would very much like to know if the Under-Secretary can give us the information whether the Department are definitely of opinion that the exporter of German oats into this country gets a bounty and, if that is the case, what action is contemplated to meet the situation? We all realise that our producers, who are selling a product in competition with a product which comes into this country bounty-fed from abroad, are definitely placed at a disadvantage, and that it is a state of affairs which

      651
      ought not to be permitted to continue, but, at the same time, we have to realise that there are a number of people engaged in various branches of agriculture who benefit very greatly from cheap feeding-stuffs. That is a point which should never be forgotten.
      I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) refer to the question of accommodation roads and farm roads. That is a question which has been left too much in the background. While we have been spending millions of pounds on main roads and first-class roads, these accommodation roads, which are vital arteries for farm produce, have been left neglected in the background. That, at least, is a point which any Government might take up and deal with without waiting for major lines of policy. Any county council in Scotland will tell the Scottish Office that they have a number of farm roads, and a number of applications from farmers for those farm roads to be put into a condition for carrying the agricultural produce.
      It is not only to the roads that I should like to refer. Transport, after all, is one of the most important things to be considered if you are going to market your produce and generally carry on the industry of agriculture. There is transport by sea as well. Reference has been made to the transport on the Western side of Scotland carried out by the new MacBrayne Company, and I should like to brine to the notice of the Under-Secretary of State the very high freights which we have to pay in our Islands in the North of Scotland, especially when a cargo is taken from Leith or Aberdeen to Lerwick and then transhipped to a branch steamer to be sent on to the outer islands. It costs as much to send a ton of cargo from Lerwick, 15 miles, to the outer islands as it does to send a ton of cargo from Aberdeen to Lerwick. It is an exceedingly heavy charge. This is a matter to which the Government should pay attention when they are considering the whole question of transport. There are the ports and harbours which the Secretary of State spoke about to-night when he mentioned Lochboisdale and the re-conditioning of other piers and harbours. There are the freight charges on the water, and there is the
      652
      question of the roads as well. The whole question of transport should be looked at from an agricultural point of view as well as from the general public point of view or the tourist point of view.
      I wish to refer to the very excellent Report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation in Scotland to which all hon. Members have paid tribute to-night. I am sorry that it was not in our hands sooner so that we might have had an opportunity of studying it before the Debate came on. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the very great stress which the members of that committee lay upon the disorganized state of marketing in Scotland. Anyone who takes an interest in this industry knows that one of the root troubles of the industry is the disorganised state of marketing. Although they have some criticisms to offer on the progress that co-operation has made in Scotland during past years, I am glad to see that they are full of hope for its future, and I should like to quote a few lines. They appear in page 24:
      "We are convinced from our examination of the present position of co-operative organisations in agriculture in Scotland that they have justified themselves and proved that the principle of co-operation in the purchase of agricultural supplies and in the marketing of agricultural produce is a sound and practical method of improving the position of producers."
      That is a very important finding. The Secretary of State said that he was going to take this Report into his consideration, or his serious consideration, I forget which. We who are interested in co-operation hope that he will take it into his active consideration as well. We hope that one of the first things he will do will be to pay attention to the petition which has been put in on behalf of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society in order to see that that society is put on to a sufficiently sound financial basis to enable it to tackle this question in a broad manner and to get it going. The late Secretary of State for Scotland will no doubt remember that I asked him when he sat on the other side of the House to do what he could to press forward co-operation in Scotland. I was very glad to hear him to-night taking up the attitude on this side of the House that the Government should be urged forward on the lines of doing what they could to encourage the

      653
      farmers of Scotland to go in for co-operation. It is for the benefit of the industry generally that the present chaotic system of marketing should, as far as possible, be ended. It is to the advantage of the producer because the great advantage of organised marketing is that you can have what everyone in the industry looks for, namely, a stabilised price. It helps to avoid a glut or a famine, and high prices and low prices, and to keep things at a stabilised price, thus being of advantage all round both to the producer and to the consumer.
      Everyone was pleased with the statement of the Secretary of State with reference to the money which is being supplied for the furtherance of research. A few years ago—of comparatively recent times—farmers were apt to disregard what they called mere paperwork and theory. I am glad to think that to-day that way of looking at things has become old-fashioned and out-of-date and that the farmers have learnt, and are learning, that scientific research of the highest nature may bring them many great benefits. I should like to give, as an instance, a very striking statement which was made to me by the county organiser in the county of Orkney recently. He said that throughout the county of Orkney the accommodation of the byres is getting too small; they all require to be rebuilt throughout the county. This is entirely due to the use of wild white clover and the fact that the land is carrying 25 per cent. more stock than it did 25 years ago. That only shows what, an extraordinary improvement may come to our farmers by the use and application of scientific knowledge in such matters as pasture. Pasture is one of the principal things into which extended research is being made at the present time. We are looking for still further and better results from the scientific experiments which are being made in plant feeding to help the farmers.
      Reference has already been made to the question of land settlement. I think it is extremely disappointing to learn of the rate at which land settlement is proceeding. The Under-Secretary of State—I was going to say in his unregenerate days—when he sat on the other side spoke very freely about the matter. He admitted that there could be no better in-
      654
      vestment of the nation's money than paying attention to the land and bringing up a strong and healthy population. Since 1912, during the course of 17 years, four of which must be allowed for the War, there were 23,400 applications received for land, and there were settled on the land, 5,300. There were 11,000 applications withdrawn and there are still outstanding 6,900 applications. I know that a number of these 11,000 withdrawals were applicants who dropped out for various reasons, but I am afraid that the majority of the names included under that heading are people who became heartsick and gave it up, and people who died while waiting. To call this carrying out a scheme of land settlement is really ridiculous. During 1929 the number settled on new holdings was 175, and there were 65 enlargements, making a total of 240. But fresh applications came in at the rate of 439, and there were 50 enlargements, a total of 489. Therefore, there was actually double the number of applications than there were people settled, with all the balance of past years to be worked off.
      If the Government want to put the question of land settlement on to a really sound basis, they will have to be prepared to spend more money and to tackle the question on a far larger scale than- was indicated by the Secretary of State to-night when he said that he anticipated that 400 or 500 would be settled in the course of the next few years. It seems to me little short of ridiculous that a great wealthy country—it is still wealthy in spite of all our troubles—can spend millions on unemployment insurance and yet cannot find the necessary million pounds or two in order to double and treble the rate at which we are settling these people on the land in Scotland to-day. I submit to the Government that no better investment can be made of the nation's money than by speeding up this question of land settlement.
      Mr. HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) is always interested in the question of agriculture, but to-day he seemed to be specially interested in the question of the value of land from the point of view of cultivation. It is true to say that a lack of education is responsible for the rule of thumb in farming. It requires extensive knowledge to know what

      655
      to do with particular land and to get it into condition for the requirements of a farmer. In the Scottish farmer there is a Scottish characteristic called dourness which makes change very difficult even when it is in the farmer's own interest. Last week-end I was on a farm on the moorland in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok stated that there was great difficulty at times on the occasion of a strange farmer going on to a farm and not knowing the history of the crops on that farm or the methods of conducting that particular farm. There is such a thing as making a change. Here is an example. A few years ago when this farmer went on to this farm and was considering what to do he was told by the surrounding farmers that he would be wasting his money and that it could not be done. There have been people in occupation of this farm since 1780, since when there have been many tenants. They have tried different things, but they have all failed.
      It appears that the dourness to which I have referred has two sides, and the dourness of the new farmer was shown by the fact that he paid no attention to what the other farmers told him, and he proceeded with what he called his new schemes. These farmers told him what he could not grow, but last year in the front garden of the farm he gathered 500 lbs. of marketable strawberries. When one sees what can be done in this way one realises that such a farm is by no means hopeless. It was said that the land behind the farm was useless except for the purpose of a hen run, but the man hired a petrol tractor and broke up the land, with the result that he had such a large crop of turnips, potatoes and corn that farmers came to see it. They thought he was some sort of a wizard. The important thing is to get the farmer to understand the importance of initiative in his way. The farmer is suspicious. He has been made suspicious by the middleman. When the middleman comes to the farm the farmer is suspicious, because he has been so often "done in the eye" that even when a real man comes along to give him good advice and to tell him that he will get good results if he does a certain thing, he is inclined to look at that man and to say: "Is this another one?" As a result of this suspicion, one gets stagnation. That is why
      656
      it is so essential that not only money and time but education should be devoted to this subject. It pays any country to educate wherever it is growing its foodstuffs, in order to ensure increased production.
      We have had evidence given to-night with respect to the increased amount of meat that we can rear. Unfortunately, there is too much of a tendency to import frozen meat. I was in an English town, three weeks ago, in the centre of what is called the meat rearing district of England, and in five butchers' shops in the market square I saw nothing but frozen mutton for sale that had been brought overseas. I asked the reason, and one of the butchers replied that they had a certain way of cutting the meat. He said that their customers wanted certain cuts, and unless they cut the meat in that way they could not sell it. If they cut their home reared meat that way they would lose money. It is here that the co-operative idea could be of benefit not only to the consumers but to the man who is selling the meat and also to the nation. The middleman must be wiped out. We can never get anything like the increase we need in food products so long as the middleman takes his toll as he does at the present time. It so often happens that the middleman gets a grip on the farmer, because of the unfortunate economic position in which the farmer is placed. If we had a co-operative organisation for agriculture, it would mean that in regard to any man rearing stock or crops, no matter what his financial position might be, his crops would be valued and there would be no reason why he should lose anything because of his economic position. Even in the City of Glasgow, despite the fact that we have a big market and one of the finest slaughter houses, there is a certain type of middleman who is able to get on to the farmer who is in difficulties. We generally find that where the butcher can retire, the man who rears the beasts cannot retire. If we are to have co-operative effort it must get right down to that which is eating the heart out of hard-working, honest people on the land.
      I come to the question of potatoes. It was very interesting to hear the late Secretary of State for Scotland give an explanation of what is called the potato trouble. He has grown the best type of potato and has been able to sell them

      657
      because they were good, while other people who grew potatoes for weight and profit have the bulk of their crop left on their hands. The reason why these farmers have not been able to get their price for potatoes, we are told, is because the abundance of bad potatoes has brought down the price of the good potatoes. That sort of thing is commercially insane. To me there would be no difficulty in regulating such a situation. We are marking qualities in meat and other things and it would be unfair to say that we cannot grade the quality of potatoes. Although we are growing the best potatoes and the conditions are such as to give an overabundance of crop, we find that the surplus potatoes are wasted. If we had been a scientific people and a really advanced nation we should have taken steps to extract from the surplus supply of potatoes many valuable things, potato spirit and other things. We ought to let the scientific man get to work, and to give them freedom in their experiments.
      We were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that Spanish potatoes were sold in Glasgow at 6d. a pound, or £50 per ton. He might have told us also that the seed from which those potatoes were grown came from the North of Scotland. It was Scotland that provided the seeds for what in Scottish are called "blabs of water." It is strange that the farmer who is a neighbour of the man who supplied the seeds for the potatoes cannot get on, whereas the man who supplied the seeds to Spain is doing well. Unless we have some system of co-operation among the farmers we shall not make progress. Nothing could be more suspicious than one farmer to another farmer. That is why there is a difficulty in being able to keep to a price that has been arranged. In London we hear people saying that they like a waxy potato. We have an idea in some cases where the wax is. The dry, mealy potato is the sort that the late Secretary of State for Scotland has grown. That is the food potato; the other potato is what I call the drink potato. I cannot understand why there need be anything wrong because in regard to the potato crop we have more than we need. It is the middleman business that prevents us from solving the problem. We ought so to arrange things that not a single potato need be lost.
      658
      The potatoes ought to be taken to the people who want them, even if they do not pay for them. A nation can do no greater wrong than to destroy its produce. Unless we use the surplus that is sent, we shall be given a shortage.
      So far as the educational side of agriculture is concerned, there should be no curbing of expenditure. There are lands in Scotland—I walked over some last week—where the spending of £100 would make dry good soil of land which to-day is looked upon as unworkable bog. The question of getting land into order is a simple matter so far as the work is concerned. The complications exist in ownership, in this control and that control, but so far as the land itself is concerned I can see no difficulty in dealing with it, so long as we get the number of men required as instructors from the chemical point of view, who can teach the science of growth, the chemistry of the soil, etc. If hon. Members will talk to the young men on the farms they will find that they are ready to take up this side of agriculture. Therefore, I hope that the educational side of agriculture will not be neglected.
      Mr. JOHNSTON: I understand that it is desired to continue the Debate on agriculture rather than to proceed with the Fisheries Estimate, which was the original intention. If that be so, I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee it I answer certain questions which have been put by several speakers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will speak later. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) referred to the offer of a three-party conference on agriculture, and regretted that no enthusiastic welcome had been shown in the speeches that have been delivered. I give the proposal the warmest possible welcome. I have always taken the view that agriculture was too big an issue and the administrative difficulties were too big to be made the sport and plaything of party politics. I would say, as I have said on previous occasions, that great issues like unemployment and agriculture are too big, too great, too serious for any party to administer and control, and that they ought immediately to be made the subject of an all-party conference, if that were possible.
      Mr. SKELTON: Why did you not say that at the election?
      Mr. McKINLAY: He did so at the election, and before it.
      Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Member thinks that that is a, recent view of mine, I would draw attention to the fact that, from the Opposition benches, I put those views into the form of a Resolution less than two years ago, and indeed on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the importation of German oats. Indeed, several hon. Members have raised it, and have asked if, in my opinion and the opinion of the Department, these were in fact bounty-fed imports. My right hon. Friend and I have given very anxious consideration to this problem. It has been borne in upon us by many deputations and many questions that this is one of the serious difficulties from which our arable farmers are suffering at the moment. To the best of my knowledge and belief it is a bounty-fed system. The method, roughly, is this. The exporter of German oats is allowed a free import certificate to an equivalent amount which he may sell. It has a market value, there is a traffic to it, and, therefore, to the extent that he gets an income from the sale of that certificate he is able to sell his exported oats cheaper, and so far as I can gather it is equivalent to something in the nature of 2s. per cwt. in our values. The method by which this difficulty is to be overcome is not for me in discussing the Estimate to say. My right hon. Friend may have something to say about it later, but the fact of the matter is that the method of dealing with it is surrounded by many international and diplomatic difficulties which cannot be summarily dealt with in the course of a discussion on the Scottish Estimates.
      Other hon. Members have also raised the question of land settlement, the delays of settlement, and the small number of families settled annually on the land. It is quite true that, despite the fact that my right hon. Friend immediately he took office, gave instructions that the maximum number of men were to be settled on the land consistent with the Votes that had been passed by this House and consistent with the ability of the administrative machine to settle them, the rate of progress is not as great as we should have liked, but there are many difficulties which must be faced.
      660
      Sometime suitable land is held on a long lease. You cannot simply declare that the most suitable land in an area must be forthwith settled. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) knows well the great legal difficulties which involve the delay in land settlement. There is, further, the fact that the administrative machine is only capable of settling so many people on the land compulsorily—I am not talking for the moment of voluntary settlement—and that fact also must be taken into account. But the policy of the Secretary of State and the policy of this Government is to settle as many people on the soil of Scotland as it is possible for us to do.
      Mr. SKELTON: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means by voluntary and compulsory settlement? I did not quite follow him.
      Mr. JOHNSTON: There are two systems, broadly speaking; the system under which the Department acquires land and the system by which the Department induces a proprietor to accept settlement on his land without disturbing his ownership. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) asked me a series of questions, on two of which I propose to say a word, but on the other questions I am afraid I cannot within the limits of order possibly say anything. The question of beef products to which he alluded has indeed interested us very much. It is no scores that the Empire Marketing Board are now actively dealing with this matter. The sale of foreign beef as British beef is fraudulent now, and is an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act. If the hon. Member and his friends have any reason to believe that in any particular district such fraudulent sales are proceeding—I have no doubt they are—and if he has any information at his disposal, the Department would be very glad to have it, because we are determined that the consumers who pay for British beef shall get that for which they pay. As a result of the activities of the Empire Marketing Board and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, the sales of marked Scotch beef on the Smithfield Market has grown about 300 per cent.—a very remarkable figure. My right hon. Friend has added another grading agent in Aberdeenshire.

      661
      All this is being done without any charge whatever to the industry on the north and north-east coasts, and it is hoped the industry itself will see the benefit of an assured market, the benefit of having its products protected from fraudulent competition, and will do its utmost to extend the system under which it is possible to give a guaranteed market to the British product and at the same time give the consumer an assurance that he is getting a tip-top article and is getting what he pays for. The most remarkable fact has been, that, whenever we have attempted a drive in the London market and in the Birmingham market, we have always found that we could increase the demand to a far greater ratio than we could increase the supply. The Department has taken every possible step in its power to make the producers of the first-class Scottish article aware of the opportunities that lie to their hand.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it proposed to extend this to Inverness and further north?
      Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope I shall not be pressed on that for the moment. It involves questions of finance and the Empire Marketing Board. The State has undertaken a successful experiment, and it really ought to be the business of the industry itself which is going to reap the advantage to take cognisance of this and to provide their own grading agents co-operatively and not look to the State to provide grading agents all over the country. I hope I shall have an opportunity to-morrow of saying a word about milk. We ought at any rate to get credit for having succeeded in initiating a great milk experiment in Lanarkshire in which some 10,000 children are being daily given a ration of milk, half pasteurized and half T. T. We hope that experiment will go on till the end of June. By the way, all that milk is being purchased through the milk pool, and by that means we are doing our best to give official benison to the milk pool, and to keep it on its feet during difficult times; and we trust that when the experiment ends at the end of the school year the results in health and benefit to the children will have been so marked that local authorities all over the country will take the necessary steps to see that in their areas a guaranteed market through the schools
      662
      is provided for milk. If we can do that, though perhaps in a halting way, we shall certainly be doing something to bring the producer of milk into direct relation with the consumer. It is my firm conviction that we can prove we have actually saved more money in public health by this milk supply method than we have expended on the milk.
      The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Mr. Sinkinson) and the Noble Lord who represents Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith), have asked me a large number of specific questions mostly about particular and localised things. I am going to suggest, if I may, that when the OFFICIAL REPORT appears to-morrow I will ask the appropriate officers to supply me with information, and I will undertake to send a letter to each of these Gentlemen. I am sure by that means I shall save the time of the Committee and also assure that the hon. Members will get a detailed answer to their questions.
      8.0 p.m.
      I should like to say a word about co-operation. Everybody speaks favourably about it now and everybody gives it his blessing, but it is not so easy to put it in operation. My right hon. Friend set up a very strong committee of inquiry and asked them to report without delay. That committee has reported and the Report has been published, and my right hon. Friend has already taken the necessary steps to see how far the Department can produce schemes to ensure that some of the recommendations of that committee should be immediately acted upon. We have done more than that. We adopted an experiment in the Isle of Skye. I can give this as one illustration, because I took a personal interest in its initiation. We endeavoured to assist the growers of eggs in Skye who complained that in some parts of the Island during the glut period last year they were only getting 6d. a dozen for their eggs when the wholesale price was very much more than that. We made them an offer. We said, "We will give you what was last year's wholesale price, and we guarantee to take the total output." We offered to grade these eggs; we offered to cold store them; we offered to keep them off the market in the time of glut, and, at the end of the glut

      663
      period when the price had again risen, we offered to dispose of the eggs, saying that whatever surplus was over after the administrative expenses of the experiment had been met would accrue to the growers. That was an offer which we expected would be joyfully and enthusiastically accepted by every poultry breeder in Skye. It was costing them nothing, and they were getting their co-operation started without any risk or cost to themselves. I very much regret to say, however, that the growers of the eggs still saw fit to hand over their supplies to the local merchants, and thus a very promising experiment was not successful. I say this to show that it is not easy to break down engrained prejudices and habits and customs of generations, and that many poor people who are in debt to merchants cannot very easily break away from the old system of merchanting their eggs, and take up a co-operative system. But I am not all without hope in the matter. We have learned some lessons by our failure in this experiment, and my right hon. Friend is determined that whatever assistance he can give to co-operation in the marketing of agricultural produce he undoubtedly will give.
      I ought to say a word in response to the right hon. Member who raised the question of the Agricultural Credits Act, and the failure of its operation in Scotland. The hon. Member was at no pains to hide his disapprobation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for his failure to secure that the Agricultural Credits Act operated in Scotland as it operated in England. Let me give the facts. As hon. Members know, to the amount of the capital that the new corporation would put up, the Government would add as much again, but it was found that, with half the banks refusing to come in, the total sum upon which debentures could be raised would be insufficient, in the opinion of skilled agriculturists whom we consulted in the matter, to do anything but scratch the surface, and that it was far better that we should seek to take other means of making agricultural credits effective than that we should start with the four bank system and the £65,000 system and make a failure of it and break the hearts of those who were so anxious that a system
      664
      of agricultural credits should be successfully floated.
      My right hon. Friend, finding that the four banks would not come in, turned his attention to other sources, and I think, even yet, it would be wrong of me to be more explicit on the matter, because I am not without hope that one of these sources will succeed. But the suggestion has been made that, if my right hon. Friend fails in his efforts to get the credit system operating in Scotland as it has operated in England, it may be that he will be driven in the last resort to come in on the English banks. He might be driven then to have no separate system at all for Scotland. I am not sure, however, that that will be to the benefit of Scottish agriculture in the long run. My right hon. Friend is more emphatic on that point than I am. My right hon. Friend and the Department have anxiously explored every avenue—and when I say "anxiously" I mean it. We have spent a lot of time on the matter. We have discused it frequently with authorities on the subject of banking and agriculture. We have really done our best to explore every method of meeting what was admittedly a very difficult situation, and a situation that was difficult not on account of anything we had done.
      Major - GENERAL Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Will the hon. Member say what terms and conditions the banks want?
      Mr. JOHNSTON: I think I can say, without causing any difficulty, that the four banks refuse to operate under any conditions. I do assure the Committee that it has not been through any laxity or want of effort on the part of my rignt hon. Friend that the system has not operated in Scotland. I think it is time that this was said, because hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House ask questions on this matter on Tuesday afternoons, and, when my right hon. Friend simply said he was doing his best and was considering the question, it gave rise to laughter by hon. Gentlemen who thought that my right hon. Friend was evading his duties in the matter. As a matter of fact, he was harassed with very great difficulties, and it may be that

      665
      we shall be driven to scrap the Scottish Act altogether and seek a new method under English auspices.
      I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollock (Sir John Gilmour) in everything he said in regard to research. What he said is quite in line with our policy. We do desire to speed up research in every possible way, and I hope that, when we get the results of research, no trade interest will be permitted to stand in the way of those results being fully operative. For example, when we discover that the cause of black mark in cheese is due to a species of lead poisoning in the colouring matter by which cheese is adulterated, we think that every possible step should be taken to ensure that the British public gets the pure article and an uncontaminated article, and that the Scottish cheese industry is freed, through the results of such research, from that drawback.
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
      Mr. JOHNSTON: The question of the Government's attitude towards a potato pool is a matter on which I would prefer my right hon. Friend should speak. The problem is one of efficient marketing. It is our intention to produce a marketing Bill under which, I trust, potato and other agricultural pools will flourish. No pool is of any permanent use whatever unless there is some compulsory power against the recalcitrant minority. If 80 per cent. of the growers of potatoes are willing to go into a pool and 20 per cent. stay outside and endeavour to break the pool, then compulsory powers are needed over the blackleg minority.
      I trust that all sections of the Committee, when we come to discuss the methods under which pool co-operative marketing can be carried out, will make it plain from the beginning that we mean business and are not prepared to tolerate a recalcitrant blackleg minority breaking the pool. The right hon. Member opposite asked about the Luskentyre experiment. The figures cannot yet be given; the official arbiter has not given his decision in the matter, but the right hon. Member will be glad to know that the somewhat dolorous picture he painted is not supported by our agricultural advisers. We have been assured
      666
      that we can get economic holdings for eight or ten persons, and when the right hon. Gentleman is reminded that amongst these eight or ten persons are men who were in and out of gaol for land troubles in the neighbourhood, I am certain he will agree that the State is making a far better investment in making land which was a deer forest and a rabbit warren provide a livelihood for ten families.
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The Department is to administer this for a period of years?
      Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, in order to ensure that the best possible results are obtained for further fresh experiments which we hope to make.
      Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the Under-Secretary of State be good enough to look into the question of accommodation roads to farms which was also raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton)?
      Mr. JOHNSTON: That is a matter which may involve legislation and the Secretary of State may say a word about it. It is a general question of policy. The late Secretary of State referred to the matter of surveys. We have speeded this up to the maximum, and reports are now coming in in some detail. They will be found to be exceedingly useful. We are taking specimen parishes in various parts of the country in order to get a picture of the agricultural and economic situation and it has been arranged that these surveys, shorn of names and particulars, which would enable particular farmers to be traced—we do not want to do that because it would make it very difficult indeed to conduct further surveys—will be published report after report, in the "Scottish Journal of Agriculture," beginning almost at once. These reports will be available to hon. Members, and it may be advisable later to collect them in some other form. There is also a report of the Committee on the profitableness of various branches of farming in Scotland. This will be of interest to hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies. Some four groups of 40 farms each have been specially examined, controlled and watched, and, in addition, a large number of statistics have been collected from other sources. We hope that this report will give us for the first time an

      667
      accurate and detailed picture of the economic position of representative farms and representative groups of farms in different parts of the country.
      Hon. Members who deplore the economic position of agriculture will all agree that it is a very serious matter indeed. It is a tragedy of the first magnitude that our prime industry, upon which after all everything depends, is in such serious economic difficulties. What steps are we taking to deal with it? We are taking steps about research, about co-operative marketing, steps to ensure that the producer when he raises a product is not driven off the market by an inferior production sold under a false trade description; steps to secure better drainage of the country and better arterial drainage. These are steps we propose to take, and to take quickly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will welcome assistance from any quarter, from any individual Member, in his efforts to ensure that within the limited circumstances in which he must operate the condition of our agricultural population is improved. As hon. Members opposite know we have sought their co-operation at weekly meetings at the Scottish Office. We are willing to extend that system, and to break down old methods of procedure. The situation is too serious for any Government to stand on old rules and regulations. Certainly this Government is prepared to take every step in its power and will welcome particularly any co-operation from other parties in the Committee to ensure that the producer on the soil, who is the backbone of our country, shall receive an adequate remuneration for his labour and service.
      Mr. SKELTON: I should not intervene in this interesting Debate were it not for the fact that I have one or two specific matters to which I desire to draw the attention of the Government. I do not propose to traverse the very interesting discussion we have had upon agricultural co-operation and land drainage. On the question of agricultural co-operation I have to the best of my ability been an advocate in this House and in Scotland so long that it rejoices my heart to hear the general consensus of opinion that it is now making strides amongst our agri-
      668
      culturists. I think that is true. We in Scotland are much indebted to the Agricultural Organisation Society, which has worked so hard and under such difficult circumstances to further the policy of co-operation. There is one matter in connection with co-operation, and especially with regard to the Report of the Committee which has recently been issued, to which I desire to draw the attention of the Government, and that is the question of co-operation with regard to potatoes. The Report of the Committee—and a most, admirable Report it is—recommends, in the first place, that the Government should guarantee a sum of £1,000,000 for the furtherance of co-operation in Scotland. I understand and fully sympathise with the view implied by the Secretary of State that full consideration must be given to the Report before its recommendations are adopted. I understand and entirely agree with the view that you cannot guarantee £1,000,000 within 10 days of the issue of the Report, but with regard to guarantees, there is one aspect of the question which is urgent and vital and upon which a decision ought to be given by the Government before it decides whether or not it is going to guarantee the whole £1,000,000.
      The Committee is familiar with the tremendous difficulties of the potato growers in Scotland and, in particular, the absolutely hopeless prices which were obtained last year, partly owing to the surplus. At this moment energetic, and, I think, not unsuccessful efforts, are being made to induce the potato growers of Scotland to organise themselves into what may be called a pool. For reasons with which I need not weary the Committee, there is difficulty in inducing an adequate proportion of the potato growers so to organise themselves, but I take it that there is absolutely no difference of opinion as to the necessity for such organisation, and there is no difference of opinion as to the urgency of bringing such an organisation into being before the next crop. To secure the success of such a pool it is essential that the guarantee which the Committee recommended should be given and the issue is no less than this: If the Scottish Office guarantee, not the whole £1,000,000, but whatever proportion may be found necessary as a guarantee for a potato pool, and if they do so betimes, then the pool almost undoubtedly will be in operation in time for the next crop, whereas, if

      669
      there is delay in deciding whether or not a guarantee should be given, I fear it is almost certain that the pool will not be organised in time to be available for the crop of 1930. It is an urgent question, and I press it upon representatives of the Government as a most practical and vital as well as urgent question. I am in thorough agreement as to the necessity for taking full time before deciding as to the full guarantee asked for by the committee. On the question of a general guarantee for co-operative enterprise as a whole, time may well be taken for consideration, but as regards the question of whether or not the potato pool ought to receive such a guarantee, time is of the essence of the matter, and I urge that a speedy and favourable decision should be come to on that specific point. All are agreed that to a very considerable extent, the fortunes of arable farming in Scotland may be permanently jeopardised if the potato crop of 1930 should suffer the same fate as that of 1929.
      That is the first practical question to which I would direct the attention of the Government. The other matter to which I wish to refer is of a much more general nature. Often in the House of Commons I have ventured to plead the cause of land settlement in Scotland. I do not desire now to criticise the Government because they have not been able this year to increase very noticeably the number of men settled, but I wish to state of the reasons why we Scottish Members ought to concentrate our attention, and why the Department should concentrate its attention upon the question of land settlement in our own country. It must not be forgotten that urban industry in Scotland is not showing the same degree of development as industry in England. We have in Scotland nothing equivalent to the new industries which are growing up in the south and it may be taken, broadly speaking, though I know there are exceptions, that in Scotland our urban districts are relying almost exclusively upon the heavy industries.
      To complete the syllogism, the heavy industries are those which are now suffering most and, therefore, there is practically no exit, no "bolt-hole" within the boundaries of Scotland for those who are out of work belonging to the heavy industries. In England, despite the enormously high figures of unemploy-
      670
      ment, there is such a "bolt-hole" in the new light industries. The bearing of these considerations on land settlement is this. It is now a proved fact that there are many men who, although they have been brought up in urban areas and have lived by urban industries until they have been thrown out of employment, are, none the less, when given the opportunity, capable of making good upon the soil. That is proved by such examples as that which we find given in the report of the Department of Agriculture. There is the example of the tailor who, after five years work on a small holding, has now 800 laying hands and a substantial capital behind him. Anybody who has taken the trouble to investigate the subject knows that there are many similar cases.
      As we in Scotland have no modern light industries to act as an outlet for our depressed heavy industries, and as it is now proved that there is a considerable urban, or semi-urban population capable of being put on the land in Scotland, it is particularly necessary that land settlement should proceed on the widest possible scale, because it is the only outlet for those who have become unemployed in such industries as mining and iron and steel. It is too little understood, that capacity of urban people, generally, to make good upon the land; and still less fully is it understood how peculiarly close in Scotland is the connection between town and country. We have not got in Scotland a number of enormous pities where life has become absolutely urbanised and where the country is an unknown factor. Urban life in Scotland is carried on far more in small towns where there is a much closer connection with the country, and there is hardly a working class family in Scotland, some of whose members have not at some time or other had something to do with the land.
      That is a condition that does not exist in England. It exists most strikingly in Scotland, and if one discusses questions of land settlement in urban Scotland, one gets a much more ready response than if one discusses it with a similar class in England. There is a close social connection between the great bulk of our urban life in Scotland because it is carried on in small towns, and a much closer social connection between town and country in

      671
      Scotland than in England. There would be far less difficulty in carrying out in Scotland a policy of land settlement which is definitely directed towards helping the problem of unemployment in the cities. I have made these remarks at some length, but they are vital and relevant to the problem of land settlement in Scotland. Other issues and other arguments would have to be considered if we were dealing with the question of land settlement in England, but in Scotland the vital factor that cannot fail to attract attention as soon as we turn our minds to Scotland is that there is no modern development of the lighter industries to take men from the more depressed industries. If we are to keep the out of work miner and iron and steel worker in Scotland, and not drive him to the Dominions and colonies, we have only the land on which to put him. That is the main factor of the Scottish land settlement situation. The other factor is the much closer social connection between the towns and country in Scotland.
      It is for these reasons that I urge that the Government, who have clearly abandoned land settlement in England, should adopt a land settlement policy in Scotland. This matter needs no legislation; it merely needs the Scottish Office to get from the Treasury a larger grant for land settlement. I am fully satisfied on the whole with the skill and ability of the Department of Agriculture to continue the work of land settlement in a wider way. I hope that the suggestion of buying estates for land settlement will be developed, and that the most unsatisfactory system of leasing estates from private owners and then instituting small holdings on them will be abandoned. It was a system which did not meet with the approval of the Committee which dealt with the question of land settlement a year or two ago. May I urge the necessity of giving some guarantee to the infant potato pool which is struggling towards life. If the right hon. Gentleman will give some guarantee to that co-operative effort, the main arable crop of Scotland, namely, the potato crop of 1930, will be dealt with under far more favourable conditions than if the guarantee were not given. The Secretary of State has it in his power either to make the potato growers secure for 1930 or to leave them in the state of
      672
      uncertainty and anxiety in which they are at present. The Agricultural Organisation Society are doing everything they can to create the pool and the response is amazing, if one remembers the state of affairs only two years ago. The matter rests with the Government, It is no use the Secretary of State saying that he desires to do everything to help the arable farmers, if he turns down this demand which will be placed before him that he should give the potato pool a guarantee of Government financial support. If he gives that guarantee, the Secretary of State will do a most valuable piece of work both for the general policy of agricultural co-operation, and for the vital and urgent question of giving the potato grower a fair chance.
      Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) has made a powerful appeal for land settlement in Scotland. Undoubtedly, there are thousands of men walking the streets of the towns in Scotland who have been unable to find work through their inability to get land to cultivate. I have risen to address one or two questions to the Secretary of State in connection with the best sugar factory at Cupar. There is a reference to this factory in the Report of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, page 7. This factory was erected to melt home-grown sugar. Under the Beet-Sugar (Subsidy) Act, £21,000,000 has been spent, and this particular factory has received some £750,000 under the Trade Facilities Act to enable the factory to erect buildings and buy the necessary machinery. During the last few months the factory has been melting foreign sugar and competing directly with the Greenock refiners in the markets of Scotland. Legislation may be necessary—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better discuss this under the appropriate Vote. It comes under separate Vote.
      Sir G. COLLINS: In the report of the Department of Agriculture, there is a reference to this factory, and, because of that, I ventured to address this one question to the Secretary of State as I am not anxious to raise the general subject.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member proposes to do no more than ask a question arising out of the report, I

      673
      think that would be in order, but we are now discussing the Estimates and there is nothing in them dealing with beet-sugar. Beet-sugar comes under another Vote.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I have no desire to disobey your Ruling, sir, but the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for this factory and it is because he is responsible and because of this reference in the Report that I wish to ask just one question.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want to be rigid in my ruling, but again I would emphasise the fact that this Estimate does not include the beet-sugar scheme. The hon. Member may ask a question on the Report, but he cannot develop the argument. The beet-sugar Vote covers operations in both England and Scotland, and questions of detail must be raised upon that particular Vote.
      Sir G. COLLINS: I quite appreciate the fact that I was on thin ice. My question will be a simple one. This factory which is in Cupar has received some £750,000 under the Trade Facilities Act. Is this State-subsidised factory in Cupar carrying out its obligations under the terms of the minute?
      Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Under-Secretary of State, in dealing with criticisms in regard to the Agricultural Credits Act stated that at least the Government were doing their best. That was an extraordinary remark to come from one who was lately sitting on this side of the House. If we had been in power and such an observation had been made by our Under-Secretary of State it would have been received with howls from the Labour benches. We should have been asked if nothing else could be done. Observations would have been hurled at us about our having found money for the beer and tobacco trades and we should have been asked why we could not find money for the Agricultural Credits Act. That is the kind of treatment we received from Labour when we sat on the Government side, but now that the Labour party sit there all they can say is that they are doing their best. After a year is that all they can tell the unfortunate farmers who want this credit? The Labour party would never have allowed us to get away with such a re-
      674
      mark, and therefore we are entitled to say that they are not acting as we should have expected the Labour party to act, in view of their old promises that they would plunge through every obstacle which stood in their path. I ask the Secretary of State to be a little more militant, to see that the unfortunate farmers in Scotland get the benefit of the agricultural credits scheme, for the position of the Scottish farmer is quite as bad as that of the English farmer.
      The Under-Secretary gave us figures showing that as the outcome of the marking scheme the sales of Scotch beef had risen by 300 per cent. We are all glad to hear that, but he might have gone a little further and reminded the House that that beneficent Measure was brought in by the Unionist party. We are indeed proud that it has proved so successful. The Under-Secretary said that farmers must not look to the State to provide the graders and markers, but must supply them for themselves. We have heard a great deal about co-operation and are most anxious to see it working in our country. I feel that by co-operation we can really assist agriculture; I do not suggest that it will put everything right but at any rate it will help. But in my opinion co-operation in this industry has railed because the graders and the markers were not independent people. If a co-operative society is set up and the grader or valuer is a person appointed by the committee which run that society, many of the farmers are of opinion that the cattle of the men on the committee who appoint the grader get the first chance. As the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) said, Scottish farmers are very doubtful about each other and do not trust each other very far, and I think many co-operative schemes have not attained success owing to the fact that the graders were not impartial individuals paid by the State. Therefore I appeal to the Government to see if they cannot alter their policy and have graders paid by the Government.
      It is to be noted that this Estimate provides £90,000 more for agriculture in Scotland than was the case last year. I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting more money for Scotland, and should not grudge any single penny that can be obtained for agriculture, but with the finances in the country in their present state we have no right to vote an

      675
      extra £90,000 unless we are assured that the money will be spent to the best advantage and that we shall get some reasonable return. Certainly before we grant this extra £90,000 we ought to know what the agricultural policy of the Government is to be. I should have thought that when the Government were asking for extra money for agriculture would have been the time to produce their policy, if they have one.
      The first item I wish to refer to is that of salaries, wages and allowances. This year there is an increase in this item of £7,523. Those who look more into the details will find that this sum includes an increase of £2,669 for clerical staff and £4,173 for additional surveying staff. Take the clerical staff. There we find an increase in the item for examiners from £4,459 to £8,371. I should like to know the reason for this large increase in the Estimates for examiners, and what particular work they are going to undertake to necessitate that increase. I find that the estimate for clerks has been reduced from £33,865 to £30,685 for 1930, and the number of clerks has been reduced from 122 to 115. Why is it necessary to reduce the permanent staff and then make all this allowance for more temporary staff? I should like the Under-Secretary to give us some explanation of that reduction. On the next page there appears an item, Allowance for Temporary Clerical and Typing Assistance at Head Office of £1,377 for 1930, while in 1929 the amount was £700. What has happened to necessitate this increase in the cost of temporary clerical assistance? There is another item for temporary clerical assistance at the branch offices which also shows an increase, and I should like to know the reason for having all this temporary assistance spreading over several years.
      9.0. p.m.
      I turn to the next page of the Estimates, and I find that, the surveying staff requires an additional £4,173 for the year 1930. I do not think that we ought to spend £4,173 more for the surveying staff without knowing what these men are going to do for the money, Why is all this extra assistance required? Has it anything to do with the increase in the number of examiners? What is going to happen, and how is this money going
      676
      to be spent? If all this increase of staff is necessary for examiners and surveyors it does not seem to me that the Estimates make a sufficient allowance for travelling expenses. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland upon the estimate for telegrams and telephones not being up, because I thought more would be necessary owing to an increase in the staff. I notice that the item for miscellaneous schemes of agricultural development shows an increase for 1930 of £23,640. For the year 1929 the estimate was £10. I think we are entitled to have some explanation as to the schemes to which this increased estimate is going to be devoted.
      I notice, on page 154, it is stated that the increase of £23,640 for miscellaneous schemes of agricultural development is in order to make provision for schemes that may arise during the year. I should like to know if there is any connection between these particular schemes and the increase of £3,173 for the surveying staff. We have not been told what is the agricultural policy of the Government, and that is the reason why we are obliged to ask questions in regard to these details. On page 146 there is an increase of £26,765 in the item for Land Drainage, the full amount being £42,675. I should like to know if that expenditure is intended to deal with unemployment, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell the Committee whether it has any connection with the schemes to be put forward by the Lord Privy Seal.
      Reference has been made to the need for more money to be devoted to agricultural education, the estimate for which was £80,205 for last year compared with £72,200 for 1930. It is very strange that that item shows a reduction. One thing that we want to do is to see that our farmers, and especially the smaller ones and those who are furthest away from the centres, get the benefit of the research that is carried out. Further, I should like to ask if something could not be done to supply leaflets and literature to farmers, setting out the results of that research.
      With regard to the grants out of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, for the purpose of small holdings and so on, everyone is anxious, as I myself am, to see people put on small holdings, but it is absolute folly to plant a large number of

      677
      these smallholders throughout the country unless they are going to be able to make a living. At the present time farming is not paying, and to spend large sums of money in settling men on the land in an industry of which it is almost impossible to make a success—an industry to which the Government profess to give lip service, but which they do not do much to assist, because they have no policy—seems to me to be madness.
      There is another point, which is, perhaps, rather a small one, and that is with regard to the destruction of rats and mice. I see that the item for expenses under the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act comes to £25, but on the previous page we have an official who receives a salary of £500 a year as the executive officer under the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act. I should have thought that, when the Act only costs £25 to administer, it might have been possible to administer it by some cheaper officer than one receiving £500 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Buy a cat!"] The reason why I have put these questions to the right hon. Gentleman is that, as I said at the beginning, the Government, in asking us to vote these large sums of money, are asking us to buy what in common parlance is known as a pig in a poke, and I should like to hear something definite in reference to the various items which I have mentioned.
      Mr. SCOTT: I have had too much connection, from various angles, with land settlement in Scotland, to be unsympathetic with the Government in the work that they have in hand in connection with this matter. There are, however, two things that the Government require. The one is money, and the other is sufficient power. I think they ought to go boldly to the Treasury and insist upon getting the money that is required for the purposes of land settlement in Scotland; and also that they should come to Parliament to ensure that they get sufficient powers to acquire ample supplies of land compulsorily in order to settle those men who are still awaiting holdings. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the rate of progress of land settlement since 1912 is something under 200 per annum, so that, since at the present time there are 3,914 applicants for new holdings, it will take him roughly
      678
      20 years—during all of which time, no doubt, he will be in office—to get the whole of these applicants settled.
      There is another aspect of the matter, and that is that, among these 3,914 applicants, there are no fewer than 2,094 who are ex-service men. That is to say, 12 years after the Armistice, these men who came home from the War are still waiting for the implementing of the promises which were seriously made to them in the name of the nation. They are looking, and have looked, to one Government after another, and may I say that they have looked with particular hopefulness to the advent of a Labour Government, for the fulfilment of those promises. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should make these 2,094 ex-service men his first care, and should see that the time is not allowed to run on, and that these men do not have to wait 20 years for holdings.
      I have been in the habit of studying the accounts of the Board of Agriculture to the extent to which one can discover them, and I should like to see, not only with regard to Luskentyre, which was referred to from the Front Opposition Bench, but with regard to every one of the estates which are acquired by the Department of Agriculture, a proper statement of accounts made public. I should like to see, for example, a capital and revenue account with regard to Luskentyre, and another with regard to Erribol, which would have been very enlightening. We always get, and are entitled to expect such statements from any undertaking or enterprise or company, and, surely, from a Department of Agriculture we ought to be able to get a statement of accounts with regard to each of these estates which they handle, showing, for example, on the capital side, what has been paid for the estate and what has been spent on it in the way of capital development for water supply, fences, additional buildings, and so on, and on the other side the revenues from the estate. I remember reading that on one occasion, when the previous occupant of the right hon. Gentleman's office was asked whether, from the records in the Department of Agriculture, he could furnish such a statement, he admitted that he could not. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take steps—and no one is more competent than himself to do so—to see that the accounts

      679
      in the Department of Agriculture are kept in such a way that the public may know, when an estate is purchased or acquired for the purpose of land settlement, whether the transaction is a profitable one or the reverse.
      I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in regard to the acquiring of further estates for land settlement. There are two methods by which he can proceed—the method of purchase and the method of what is known as scheduling land, which was introduced under the Act of 1911. Objections were taken to that method of scheduling land; there were too many obstacles to be overcome, and too many compensation claims to be paid to landowners. Those obstacles have been largely removed by the Land Settlement Act of 1919, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the method of scheduling land is preferable, from his point of view as an administrator, to that of purchase. I will give him in a word the main reasons for that. If he purchases land, he has, of course, to use the money of the State to buy land at far too high a price, because the price is based upon rentals which are not economic. He spends the money and then he has not, of course, sufficient to equip all the holdings in the way he would like to do. In preference to purchase, he ought to keep in his pocket the money which, no doubt, some of the landowners would like to have transferred to their pockets. He should, on the other hand, schedule in the hands of the owners whatever land he requires for the purpose of land settlement.
      May I remind him of a recent decision of the Court of Session which makes it quite clear that he does not require to purchase the buildings on any estate on which he is to settle holdings. He does not require to buy either the land or the buildings. All he requires to do under the machinery of the 1911 and 1919 Acts is to schedule land for the purpose of small holdings, and the landowner gets a fair rent for the use of the land end the buildings. If he could prove that to any extent he loses in annual income by the establishment of the small holding, he has a just claim against the Department which the Department will, of course, meet, but I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should not use
      680
      public money at his disposal in purchasing land. He should use it mainly for the purpose of equipping the holdings which he has acquired by the method of scheduling and also for the purpose of assisting the new holders with funds to carry on their industry. I do not include for the moment certain of those cases where admittedly purchase may be preferable to scheduling. I am stating a general rule which I recommend the Department to follow, that of scheduling.
      The only other matter to which I should like to draw attention is also a matter of policy, but it seems to me to be a somewhat grave one, namely, that of equipped rents. The Department of Agriculture is now the largest landowner in Scotland and owns some 400,000 acres in its own right. But it controls the administration of holdings which are not upon estates owned by the Department, and a change has taken place in the policy of the Department during the last few years. It was instituted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, with what object I do not know, but, on the pretext that the Department of Agriculture had not power under the existing Acts to continue loans to incoming holders, I understand that instructions were given to the Department that they should not give loans to incoming holders, but that those holdings that became vacant should be let to new holders at equipped rents. Letting at equipped rents means that you let the land and buildings, the tenant pays rent for both to the Department and he never by any possibility can become the owner of the buildings. In my opinion the Department, in altering the policy as I have stated, has taken a step that is contrary to the spirit of the Small Holding Acts and for which there is no statutory authority whatever. The extraordinary point is that the Department still claims that those men who are put into holdings under the equipped rent system are still land holders. They are land holders in name only and they do not have the attributes of land holders which the Land-holders Acts have clearly laid down. A land holder, according to the Acts, is a man to whom belongs the greater part of the improvements upon the holding. A tenant at an equipped rent owns none of the buildings at all and never can become the owner.
      I want to represent the three aspects of this transaction to the right hon. Gen-

      681
      tleman from the different points of view. First of all with regard to the holding itself, it is deprived of its character as a land-holders' holding. It becomes one under the Agricultural Holdings Act in every sense except that of name. In my opinion the Department had no authority, statutory or otherwise, for the change of policy. It cannot have been for the purpose of returning the money to the Treasury that the change of policy took place, because the Treasury loans were given to the Department for some 50 to 80 years. In the second place, the Department becomes the owner of the buildings and the land and is in perpetuity drawing from them an equipped rent which is not what the land holder was, under the Acts, expected to pay, namely, merely a land rent, but they are obtaining from the tenant a rent for both land and buildings, and the rent that is being charged is much higher than it need be. They are being charged rent with is equivalent roughly to the rent of the land plus the annuity for acquiring the buildings, and yet they can never become the owners of the buildings.
      In the third place, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what is the position of these tenants. They are paying equipped rents and they are higher than they need be. In the second place they are bound to maintain the buildings as land holders. They are called land holders with the liability to maintain the buildings. This does not mean merely liability at common law, that is to say for the common law repairs which any tenant has to make. The liability is for all the repairs to the buildings and, if the tenants do not keep the buildings in repair, they are liable to ejection. At any rate they have no recourse against the Department if renewal or reconstruction is required.
      The tenants are put in a very prejudicial position for themselves. They are also liable to be rated on the land and buildings, and they are not even getting the benefit of the De-rating Act. They are being rated, not upon an eighth of the land rent as they would have been rated if this change of policy had not taken place. They are being rated upon an eighth of the equipped rent, which is very much higher and, accordingly, they have to pay higher rates as well as higher rents. Not only has the Department changed this policy with regard to
      682
      land and buildings, in lands in other ownership than their own, but they have applied to the Land Court for registration of persons as new holders at equipped rents of small holdings on land owned by the Department.
      I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this, and I would ask him whether he knows of any statutory authority which is the sanction for the change of policy and whether he believes that the Department is entitled to utilise the smallholders' Acts in order to obtain money from the Treasury for the establishment of land holdings in Scotland upon the basis of these Acts, and then to proceed to let the land to tenants on terms which are outside the Acts? The scheme of the Acts is perfectly clear, that the men were intended to be put in holdings and assisted with loans from the Department, and after the course of 50 years they or their successors are to be the absolute owners of the buildings for which they have paid. That is the scheme of the Acts. The right hon. Gentleman's Department is using the Acts in order to obtain money from the Treasury for the establishment of holdings upon that scheme and then, as I understand, are departing from the terms of the scheme, and are letting the holdings on terms quite alien to the spirit of the Acts, which will prevent the men who are settled there from becoming land holders in the spirit of the Acts with all the rights and privileges intended to be conferred upon them.
      I understand that this policy of the Department of Agriculture is being put in force in many parts of Scotland. Whenever a holding becomes vacant, they are taking the opportunity to let that holding at equipped rent. They are proceeding to acquire estates which they are going to let out upon an equipped rent basis. In my humble submission, this policy requires to be justified and explained. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with great deference, that, unless he can satisfy himself as to the statutory legality of the procedure, as to whether it is not an injustice with regard to the landholders, he ought in the meantime to prevent the policy from being proceeded with in the future.
      Major DUDGEON: My right bon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has assured us of his sympathy

      683
      in regard to the present plight of Scottish agriculture. He has assured the Committee on many occasions of his keen sympathy in regard to the present agricultural situation in Scotland, and I am quite sure that his sympathy is absolutely sincere, but I would suggest that he would receive cordial thanks from the Scottish agricultural community if he would develop his sympathy a little further into drastic and immediate action to redress the agricultural situation. The right hon. Gentleman has been furnished, within the last few weeks, with a very admirable report in regard to the marketing of agricultural produce. It was stated to-day that this report has only been available for Members during the last two days, but I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman has had the report in his possession for a good few weeks, and I hope he will be in a position at a very early date to announce his decision on this matter. With regard to the question of organised marketing as a whole, I do not intend to stress it this evening, but I would suggest that, if organised marketing is going to be of assistance to a particular branch of agriculture, which is in a most serious state at the moment, namely, the potato industry, it is essential that something should be done immediately which would operate in regard to the crop to be produced this year. A system of pools has been in operation in Scotland in regard to milk and wool, and they have at the present moment achieved a very considerable amount of success. There is every reason to believe that, if this system were extended to the potato industry, it would to a very considerable extent relieve it from its very grave and growing difficulties. My right hon. Friend should take measures at the earliest possible moment to assist the setting up of a potato pool in Scotland.
      The question of agricultural education is one in which Scotland has always taken a very great interest, and which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did a great deal to assist. The agricultural colleges in Scotland have received more financial assistance within the last few years than they did in the pre-War period, but undoubtedly, there could be more money very usefully utilised by the agricultural colleges, and I must especially stress the
      684
      point that the staff, both the teaching staff actually in the colleges and the extension lecturers in the counties, should have their salaries reviewed and that the payment to the staffs of agricultural colleges in Scotland should be on a parity with the payment in similar institutions in England and Wales. We have had very excellent staffs in all our agricultural colleges, but we have always found that there has been a considerable drift to England and Wales of some of our best lecturers and instructors. Therefore, I would suggest that this question of review of salaries should be undertaken at a very early date. With regard to the agricultural college that I know best, namely, the Glasgow and West of Scotland Agricultural College, which is now entering on a new sphere in a very fine agricultural estate in Ayrshire, I would suggest that my right hon. Friend should review the position in regard to the college and the dairy institute. I am one of those who have never been of the opinion that it was desirable to have these two separate organisations with different governing bodies. It would be infinitely better in an area such as the South-West of Scotland, where we have a good deal of similarity in regard to agricultural conditions, that the college and the dairy institute should be under united control.
      I was interested to know from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the strides that are being made in regard to land surveying. It is very important that at the earliest possible date we should have a complete land survey of the whole of Scotland, and thereby be put in a better position to arrive at a policy for the utilisation of all land in Scotland to its most perfect economic value. With regard to the question of the method of survey, might I suggest that agricultural organisations, such as the National Farmers' Union, might be utilised through their local branches in accelerating and possibly cheapening the cost of survey to the State? If that were done, the Scottish Agricultural Department would be in a, position to accelerate more quickly this question of survey. There is the question of agricultural costing. The Under-Secretary of State stated that considerable progress had been made in this matter. I think that if the ser-

      685
      vices of the Farmers' Union or even the services of the local accountants who are operating in regard to farm accountancy were taken more broadly into co-operation by the Scottish Agricultural Department more extensive statistics would be available. I place the greatest possible importance upon this question of finding out farm costs. It is only by getting definite and irrefutable statistics in this matter that we shall be able to arrive at a comparatively early date at a higher standard of farming throughout the country.
      The dairy industry, which particularly affects the south-west of Scotland, is becoming increasingly embarrassed. During the last few years the dairying branch of Scottish agriculture has been in a comparatively satisfactory condition, but we know to-day that there is a large surplus of liquid milk on the market. In some parts of my constituency milk was sold as low as 5d. per gallon in the month of April, which meant a tremendous loss to the producer. It is very difficult to regulate the supplies of milk, but I would suggest that an extension and strengthening of the milk pool would be of great assistance. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State has an opportunity through the report of the Committee on Marketing of strengthening the milk pool and so making it more successful in giving a remunerative price to the milk producers.
      In 1928, a regulation was brought into force by another Department prohibiting the use of preservatives in cream. That has had a very serious effect in the cream market. I have received figures from the organisation of creamery proprietors of Great Britain, and I find that since 1928 their sales of cream have gone down by the appalling figure of 51 per cent. This Order therefore is very detrimental to the dairying industry. Recently, three creameries operating to a large extent in the South-West of Scotland have had to close down through the operation of this Order, and there are even farmers' co-operative creameries which will have to close down in the comparatively near future if something is not done to mitigate this very serious loss in the sale of cream. There is also the question of the importation into this country of ever larger quantities of condensed, preserved and dried whole and skimmed milk. It
      686
      is at least time that some comprehensive inquiry was made into the conditions in the countries from which these condensed and dried products come. During the last 20 or 25 years the dairying industry in this country has been faced with one regulation after another, thus enhancing the costs of production. I can state as a Free Trader that it is essential that inquiries should be made into the conditions obtaining in the countries of origin of these ever-increasing imports of condensed and skimmed milk. It is a question of fair trade and fair play for our British dairy farmers.
      The question of land settlement has been referred to by several speakers during this Debate. I believe that it is more important to set up economic units in regard to small holdings than it is to set up a large number of units. There is one suggestion which I should like to throw out to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the question of setting up a number or a group of small holdings adjacent to towns, so that they can be worked by part-time workers. I think it is very essential to-day that we should try and draw the countryside and the urban populations together. During the last 20 years tremendous strides have been made in extending and cheapening transport. There is no reason why those who reside in towns to-day and who could reside five or even 10 miles out of the towns should not find part-time work in the towns and have a small holding of, say, from 2 acres up to 10 acres where they can employ their spare or their part-time. They would be able to increase their incomes and at the same time the right hon. Gentleman would be doing a great social service by bringing the interests of the countryside and the interests of the urban community more closely together.
      Scottish agriculture, which has always been outstanding and of a very high order of merit, is rapidly declining through no fault of its own but owing to difficulties which, in large measure, it cannot overcome, the countryside is becoming depopulated, thousands of acres, year after year, are being put down to grass, and the whole rural community is becoming poorer and poorer. It is; therefore, essential that measures should be taken at the earliest possible moment: to put Scottish agriculture on a stable

      687
      footing. I welcome the announcement which was made last night that there is going to be a three-party conference in regard to the present critical position of British agriculture. I believe, as do many hon. Members in this House, that there can be no solution of the problem of agriculture along party lines. We can only find an agricultural policy by entering a conference without prejudice and arriving at a policy which will ensure the agricultural community continuity. It is no good one party in this House, even if it were a party with a large majority, framing a policy and bringing it into operation. We saw the futility of that in the Corn Production Act which was promoted and enacted by the Coalition Government. There was no continuity about that Act, and really it was the beginning of all the evils in regard to agriculture in Great Britain. Therefore, I hope that at the present time when we have a spirit and a will in this House wholeheartedly to co-operate, we shall do so in order to ensure that the agricultural community will be able in the future, as in the past, to play an outstanding part in the economic and social life of our nation.
      Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have had no cause to complain of the spirit and temper in which hon. Members of both parties in Opposition have put their case. Their contributions have been of a very helpful character. Before I answer some of the questions that have been addressed to me I want to take the opportunity of paying a very hearty tribute to Mr Macaulay for his generous contribution towards the process of converting peat soil into an agricultural proposition. We are very much indebted to him. The hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) said that there were still 2,000 ex-service men who ought to be my first care so far as land settlement is concerned. I can assure the hon. Member that he does not need to remind me of that responsibility. The fact that I have provided in these Estimates for an additional £60,000 for land settlement in Scotland is proof of my interest in the settlement of ex-service men on the land. The next point that he put to me was that he thought it was better that a profit and loss account should be provided for each estate. I will keep that suggestion in mind. I was
      688
      about to use a word of which the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) made a considerable amount of play in the earlier part of the Debate, a word which he seemed to think was a favourable expression of mine. All that I would say about that matter is that it is better to "consider." There is always a chance that you will make progress if you are considering a matter. It is better to consider things than to do nothing at all.
      The hon. Member asked me to consider the question whether it was better to purchase land for holdings or simply to make the necessary arrangements for scheduling the holdings. This matter has been examined, and it will certainly be kept in mind. He also put to me a number of legal points, which will be borne in mind and examined. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty spoke of the agricultural report, and described it as excellent. It is an excellent report, and makes a considerable number of suggestions, but even the right hon. Gentleman, who is in a hurry to get the report put into operation, will admit that one requires a little time to examine it. He also spoke of the salaries for instructors. The last point that he dealt with, or the last point I remember, was in regard to the question of cream. During the last few days we have had an opportunity of discussing this question with a very large and representative deputation. The views of that deputation will be carefully considered.
      Certain questions were also addressed to me by one of the hon. Members for Aberdeen. He wanted an explanation about the appointment of seven examiners. The explanation is that only one extra man has been appointed. There has been a corresponding reduction in another department. The extra man appointed is for the purpose of assisting with the survey which is taking place, and which has been so highly commended by a number of hon. Members. Another question was put to me with regard to what is being spent on steps to reduce the number of rats and mice. Those of us who are practical agriculturists know the importance of keeping down rata and mice.
      Sir PATRICK FORD: As I understood it, my hon. Friend's point was that only

      689
      £25 was being spent on this important work of keeping down rats and mice, and that a salary of £500 is being paid to the gentleman who administers the £25.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I wanted to add, with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) as regards the salary of £500, that it is the salary of an official who is kept for co-ordinating the efforts of the local authorities in keeping down these pests. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) put two points with which I would like to deal. He urged the importance of land settlement and in contradistinction to the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) he urged that we should proceed with land purchase. I can assure the hon. Member for Perth that the Department is proceeding along these lines to a very considerable extent. They are the owners now of no less than 321,377 acres, and they inherited from the Congested District Boards 84,500 acres, making a total of 403,877 acres, so that they are going a considerable way to meet him so far as the question of land purchase is concerned. With regard to the point put by him as to taking the necessary steps to get the Government to guarantee the potato crop to the extent of £1,000,000—
      Mr. SKELTON: I did not mean that £1,000,000 was to be spent on the potato pool alone, but that whereas the decision with regard to the whole recommendations of the committees might be postponed, the guarantee of some figure with regard to the potato pool was urgent.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I am quite aware that the tendency is to develop pools. The co-operative system is commonly described as a pool, and already such pools are in existence for dealing with milk. I understood that what the hon. Gentleman wanted was that I should get the Government to guarantee these pools to the extent of £1,000,000. Hon. Members who are putting forward this proposal do not anticipate that the guarantee will involve the Government in very much money. I may say that this is a proposal that has been put to me recently by the officials of the Agricultural Organisation Society.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. SKELTON: This is a very technical question. The point I was trying to make was that the potato pool is urgent. It should be in existence before this year's crop comes on and this assistance can only be secured by the guarantee if given early. No sum like £1,000,000 would be needed, but a very much smaller sum. The general guarantee referred to in the Committee's report could be left for more mature consideration later, but the potato guarantee is urgent.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure the hon. Member that I am well aware that the potato pool is urgent. It has been placed clearly before me by the officials of the Agricultural Society, and I have said it is being investigated. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) put a question regarding beet-sugar, and I will give careful consideration to the representations made, but I want to point out that it is anticipated that there will be a marked increase in the acreage under beet-sugar in Scotland in 1930, the approximate estimate being 2,000 acres under beet cultivation as against the very much smaller amount, I think 612 acres, last year. It is not possible to say what amount may be required to meet the subsidy payments in 1930, but the figure allowed for estimate purposes is £120,478. This will mean a considerable addition to the work of the beet-sugar factory in Cupar. I do not know whether it will put them in the position of being independent of that form of work of which the hon. Member for Greenock complained.
      I think I have covered most of the questions put to me since the Under-Secretary of State answered questions previously. I want, in conclusion, to thank hon. Members for the very friendly manner in which they have discussed this Estimate with me, and I hope the explanation that I was able to give in my opening remarks, and that the Under-Secretary was able to give, and what I have been able to add since has been satisfactory to both sides.
      Mr. R. W. SMITH: May I have an answer to my question as to what are these miscellaneous schemes of agricultural development for which £23,000 odd is put down in the Estimates.
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—
      Mr. ADAMSON: The sum mentioned is for miscellaneous schemes for agricultural purposes. There is a corresponding sum in the appropriation, which means that there is no addition in the amount of money being asked for.
      Dr. HUNTER: In relation to the Cream Preservative Order, have the promised consultations between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Health materialised.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I have already stated that the matter is being investigated, and we have met the Minister of Health in the process of our investigation.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £58,442, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, and Grant-in-Aid of Piers or Quays; also for Loans to Herring Fishermen."—[NOTE: £79,000 has been voted on account.]
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS V.

      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,651,592, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, &c., Grant-in-Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants-in-Aid of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."—[NOTE: £1,140,000 has been voted on account.]
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 26th May.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Henderson.]
      Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
RUSSIA.
  TRADE DELEGATION.
  TRADE DELEGATION.
  BRITISH CONSULS.
  BRITISH CONSULS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WATER SUPPLY, WEARDALE RURAL DISTRICT.
  WATER SUPPLY, WEARDALE RURAL DISTRICT.
  SLAUGHTER HOUSES.
  SLAUGHTER HOUSES.
  NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE.
  NEGRO WORKERS (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).
  NEGRO WORKERS (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).
  CHEAP RAILWAY TICKETS (COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
  CHEAP RAILWAY TICKETS (COMPANIES' LIABILITY).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS (RECEIPTS).
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS (RECEIPTS).
  AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES, LONDON.
  AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES, LONDON.
  SAVINGS BANK (DEPRECIATION).
  SAVINGS BANK (DEPRECIATION).
  EMPIRE DAY (MEDALS).
  EMPIRE DAY (MEDALS).
  ALLOTMENTS, HANWELL.
  ALLOTMENTS, HANWELL.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, NORTH ESSEX.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, NORTH ESSEX.
  LIVERPOOL.
  LIVERPOOL.
  BRADFORD.
  BRADFORD.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  SOUTHWARK.
  SOUTHWARK.
  WOOLWICH.
  WOOLWICH.
  SAFFRON WALDEN.
  SAFFRON WALDEN.
  CATERING TRADE.
  CATERING TRADE.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK)
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK)
  INDIA (PRESS ORDINANCE).
  INDIA (PRESS ORDINANCE).
  MALAY STATES (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  MALAY STATES (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  BRANDED GOODS, GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
  BRANDED GOODS, GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know if it would be convenient for the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, to give us some information as to what course he proposes to pursue with regard to business during the next few days, and especially with regard to the approaching Whitsuntide Recess?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for asking me that Question. It sems to me that we may reasonably be expected to have finished all the work that we have in hand by the Wednesday before Whitsuntide, and then we might adjourn on that day—we shall have to make some arrangements as to a Royal Commission and so on, but I do not want to go into details now—until the following Tuesday week, which will be an ordinary Whitsuntide vacation. I am not quite certain how long we shall be away, but when we come back there will undoubtedly be some very hard work for your Lordships' House to do in order to get through the rest of the programme before the end of July. I cannot say more at present, but I think this sufficiently answers the noble and learned Viscount's Question.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Your Lordships are not unaccustomed to being asked to work rather hard in the summer towards the end of the Session.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEXHAM) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COQUET FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DOCKS) BILL.
Read 2a.
KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 2a.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a.

COAL MINES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Provisions of central scheme.
(2) The central scheme shall further provide for the following matters—
(b) for the allocation to each district by the council, after consultation with the executive board for the district, at such times and for such periods as the council thinks fit, of a maximum output for the district (in this Act referred to as "the district allocation") such maximum not to be less than the ascertained home consumption of that district;
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON) moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "at such times and for such periods as the council thinks fit." The noble and gallant Lord said: The object of this Amendment is the deletion of these words, which are re-inserted in a later Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("district") to ("of") in line 34.—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL OF DUDLEY The EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "such maximum not to be less than the ascertained home consumption of that district "and to insert" such maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein." The noble Earl said:

1025
My Lords, you will recollect that when this Bill was in Committee I moved an Amendment, the main object of which was to safeguard manufacturers from being obliged to obtain the fuel that they required from outside districts when they possessed at their own doors a much better and cheaper supply. A majority of your Lordships supported that Amendment, and I venture to think that it embodied a sound principle, which surely ought to be maintained within the four corners of this Bill. But during the debate upon that Amendment, from the speeches that were made by noble Lords in different parts of the House and especially from the speech that was made by my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition, I was left with the impression that, although the majority of the Committee agreed with the principle of the Amendment, there was a distinct view in certain quarters that the actual wording might be improved.
Moreover, it has been pointed out to me since that the Amendment as actually worded might go rather further than I intended, and might even hamper the working of this Bill in one or two of the larger coal fields. Let me take the case of Lancashire. Lancashire, I believe, produces at the present time about 15,000,000 tons of coal a year, but a very much greater amount is consumed by her industries. If, therefore, the Amendment were to stand in its original wording, Lancashire would be given an allocation of not less than the ascertained home consumption of the district, an allocation which would be, of course, far in excess of the amount of coal which in present circumstances she can possibly produce. That would create a most undesirable situation, and would undoubtedly very much hamper Yorkshire and other neighbouring coalfields in the sale of their coal to Lancashire industries. Therefore I would ask the leave of the House to substitute the words of which I have given Notice, today, for the words of the Amendment carried during the Committee stage. I think that by these now words not only will the interests of the manufacturers which I have in mind be adequately safeguarded, but the danger of cutting across the Bill will be avoided.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("allocation") to end of line 38 and insert ("such
1026
maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein."—(The Earl of Dudley.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the desire of the noble Earl to remove some of the difficulties that arise under his first Amendment, which is now in the Bill. The real difficulty in this matter is that it is very difficult to determine what a coal-consumption area in any district is, as a coal-producing area is by no means coterminous with a coal-consuming area. The three districts to which I think the noble Earl more directly referred in his speech on the Committee stage were Cannock Chase—
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: No, not Cannock Chase.
LORD THOMSON: Staffordshire and East Worcestershire. You cannot say within a radius of a few miles what is the coal-consuming area. It may extend up to twenty miles, and while the Government appreciate the desire to overcome the difficulty with regard to counties like Lancashire, at the same time the flaw in the Bill due to this Amendment is really almost incurable in the opinion of the Government. I do not propose to resist this Amendment, if it is pressed by the noble Earl, but I do not think it is necessary, because the whole Amendment will probably be taken out in another place if the Government can manage it, and they propose to try to do so. If the noble Earl persists in the Amendment, I shall not oppose it, but in point of fact, with all respect, I do not think it makes much difference to the attitude which will be taken up with regard to this Amendment as a whole, because in the view of the Government it is entirely unacceptable and cuts across the whole purpose of the Bill. The Bill provides that in fixing the district allocation the Central Council shall consult with the district executive, and if the executive board is not satisfied it can appeal to arbitration. That was laid down in the original Bill, and that is what we thought would meet the noble Earl's point. But his original Amendment was passed, and this attempt to remove certain flaws which the noble Earl himself has recognised in that Amendment does not, in the opinion of the Mines Department, really make any

1027
great difference. So I can only repeat that if the noble Earl persists with the Amendment I shall not resist it, but I should be glad if he did not press it.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, may I suggest that the words "and providing for" should be omitted from this Amendment? That would make it purely advisory, and I should think that in those conditions the Government might find it much more possible to accept it. I do not think that anybody could deny that grave difficulties would arise, as the noble Lord has said, by trying to make the consuming areas of coal the producing areas of coal. Speaking as one interested in Lancashire I should be delighted to see that district allowed to produce all the coal it can for its own area. Of course, I recognise that it is quite impracticable. The term "district" in the Bill is defined in the case of Lancashire as Lancashire and Cheshire. There are one or two collieries of the Lancashire coal field which are just over the border in Cheshire, and it would be rather absurd to say that the whole of Cheshire should be included in the Lancashire area for the purpose of consumption. Take another case. There are two Welsh districts defined—North Wales and South Wales. Who is to draw the line between them and to say what is the home consumption of North Wales and what the home consumption of South Wales? The same, I think, applies to North Derbyshire and South Derbyshire. Therefore, I think the Amendment as carried in Committee, although it was no doubt hardly obvious to many who voted on it, would really be impracticable to work, and if it were left purely advisory it might be possible for the Government to accept it, without interfering with the general principle of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I confess that I was a little disappointed at the attitude taken up by the noble Lord—who is, I gather, still in charge of the Bill. Noble Lords responsible for the Bill change so frequently at different stages that they will forgive me if I am not quite sure who is the right person to address. I do not think it is an adequate answer to an Amendment brought forward in order to try and improve the wording of the Bill and to make it more practicable, to say that the Government are going to resist an Amendment in another place, and therefore it
1028
does not matter what your Lordships do here. I think it is our duty to try to make the Bill, having regard to its many defects, as little harmful and as reasonably good as may be, and I hope that your Lordships will not be deterred from undertaking that task by the somewhat discouraging attitude of the Government. I should have thought the Government would have been grateful to my noble friend Lord Dudley for having brought forward words which I think admittedly improve the Amendment, although they do not seem to make it completely satisfactory from the Government's point of view. I do not know whether the noble Earl opposite would accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Vernon, but in any event I should have thought it was much better to make the improvement which is suggested, even though the Government threaten that in another place they will not accept it.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, you thought fit in the Committee stage by a large majority to accept and pass an Amendment to which an Amendment has now been moved. That Amendment in our view really made nonsense of the Bill, and was quite unworkable. We certainly do not deprecate any effort that your Lordships think fit to make to render a totally unworkable Amendment less unworkable. We merely say that we think you cannot possibly succeed on those lines, and therefore we are not so very much concerned with what its final form is, because it cuts entirely across the scheme of the Bill. Your Lordships are, of course, willing to try and improve this Amendment, which you hastily and by such a large majority adopted. If you now think it will make matters better, we still think it is entirely unworkable and contrary to any possible scheme. That is the definition of our attitude.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, despite what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite I feel inclined to press my Amendment, and I rather protest against the words used by the noble Earl opposite in the speech that he has just made. He has said that the Amendment which was carried made nonsense of the Bill. I do not know who are the advisers of the noble Earl who have advised that the Amendment made nonsense of the Bill.

1029
All I can tell him is that some very able business people in the Midlands considered this Amendment, and in their opinion it did not make nonsense at all. However, that is a matter of opinion. As regards the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Vernon it does not seem to me that if we omitted the words "and providing for" that would lead us anywhere at all. It would merely then be a question of consideration by the Council. But that does not help us in the least. Under the Bill as it originally stood the Council had to consider what allocation we should receive. But, as I tried to point out last week, we have not great confidence in the composition of these bodies. Some of the members may, indeed, be trade rivals, and therefore what we want to provide for is, not only that our allocation should be considered by the Council, but that we should receive an allocation which will enable us to provide for the local wants of our local customers. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the proposal of my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to insert:—
"Provided that the Council in fixing the allocations shall have regard to the amount of coal or coke produced in each district and destined for export overseas with a view to securing that the production, supply and sale of coal and coke so destined shall not be hampered or restricted."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have had some correspondence with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill with regard to the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper, and I would like to thank tike noble Lord at once for the effort which he has made to meet me in these matters. But I am afraid the Amendment he has put down does not entirely meet the point that I had in mind. As the result of criticisms that were made with respect to the Amendments I put down in Committee I have modified those Amendments in order to try and overcome the objections then raised. My original Amendment laid it down that the Central Council should fix the various district allocations in such a way as not to hamper or restrict the production and sale of coal for export overseas. I now understand from the noble Lord that he objects to export coal being
1030
specifically referred to in any shape or form in the Bill.
In those circumstances, I think your Lordships will not be surprised that I was somewhat misled by what he said when this matter was debated during the Committee stage. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read out what the noble Lord said on that occasion with regard to the Amendment. He said:—
"I am sure everybody who has thought about this problem has a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's argument, but to make it incumbent upon the Central Council is perhaps a little too strong. If the noble Earl would consider some such phrase as shall take into consideration,' it would be different."
I think the only inference I could draw from those words was that the Government objected to special treatment being definitely accorded to any particular class of coal, but that they would not object to special consideration being given to certain very important factors in connection with the export trade. Justifiably, I think, I came to the conclusion that my new Amendment conformed to the suggestions made upon the Committee stage.
May I say why I do not think that the noble Lord's Amendment is sufficient? His Amendment which follows mine makes an attempt to deal with the difficulty when it arises; whereas my Amendment is designed to do whatever is possible within the present structure of the Bill to prevent any difficulty arising whatsoever. My object is to make sure from the very beginning that there shall be no difficulty in the way of any company being able to accept any foreign order whenever it comes their way. I want to repeat what I think I said during the Committee stage; that is, that the uncertainty which is engendered by the provisions contained in this Bill is already having a very bad effect upon the export trade in South Wales. And I gave your Lordships the instance of a company which had had one of its usual orders halved because its clients had definitely come to the conclusion that there was a very great chance, as the result of the provisions of this Bill, that the company would not be in a position to fulfil its contract.
In the export trade the variations of trade are extremely sudden and the demand changes extremely quickly. I am

1031
assured that the delay caused by any application that might be necessary, say, to the Central Council for an increased allocation would undoubtedly result in the loss of orders. Exactly the same arguments as apply with regard to the district allocation really apply in regard to individual quotas of collieries. Increased demands for the coal produced by a particular colliery are very sudden indeed. The export trade to a very large extent is an individual business, and very often a buyer requires a particular coal from a certain colliery and nothing else will satisfy him. Invariably in those cases a decision has to be made in a very short space of time.
It is for these reasons that it is absolutely essential that, in fixing the original allocation and the first quotas, the very fullest attention should be paid to these considerations. I understand it is the object of all of us to see that nothing remains in this Bill which will in any way hamper our export trade. I cannot understand, therefore, why some such provision as the one I suggest should not be placed in the Bill. I understand, as I said before, that the noble Lord objects to particular mention being made of the export trade. Frankly, I cannot see the force of his objection. After all, the conditions which govern the export trade are entirely different from those which govern the rest of the trade of the country, and though I can see that there may be arguments against actual special treatment being accorded, or at least a provision for special treatment to be accorded to a particular class of coal being inserted in this Bill, I cannot see that there can be any possible objection to the very fullest consideration being given to the conditions which govern our export trade in order to make the fullest allowance for the variations which occur in it and for the suddenly increased demands which may be made.
I repeat that my Amendments are merely designed to carry out what I believe to be the intention of the whole of your Lordships' House in this matter. I know that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill maintains that my object is secured in the Bill as it stands. That is not my view and it is not the view of those who are interested in this department of the trade in South Wales. In their opinion these Amendments are
1032
absolutely vital, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will support me in asking the Government to insert them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, the noble Earl has quoted from my speech. I will quote from his, and I will quote the part which mainly actuated me in trying to meet his wishes. He said:—
"We feel that there ought to be the greatest possible elasticity in this scheme with regard to this class of trade."
The Bill as it stands has its starting point for allocation in the regulation of output, in the districts. The allocation is fixed from time to time by the Central Council and it is fixed in consultation with the executive boards of the districts. If there is an unexpected demand any executive board is entitled to ask the Central Council for a further allocation. That is all in the Bill. It is inherent in the scheme and, in order that there should be no doubt about it, certain Amendments have been put down by the Government to try to meet the noble Earl's point. He says that these demands may be unexpected. It is perfectly true that they are unexpected, and for that reason they cannot be foretold. But the scheme provides, especially with the Amendment that is on the Paper in my name, for a very considerable measure of elasticity applying not only to export coal but to all classes of coal. There is a special paragraph, paragraph (d) (i) in Clause 3 (2), providing for fixing a separate quota for any class of coal.
With the Amendment that stands in my name, I really should have thought that the noble Earl would have been satisfied. Serious efforts have been made to keep my promise and I am sorry that he thinks I have not kept it. But very strenuous efforts were made to meet his point of view and I submit that the Amendment standing in my name is even more explicit than what he says in his Amendment. With the permission of your Lordships, I would like to read the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. It provides for the insertion, after line 38, of an extra paragraph which reads as follows:—
"() for the district allocation being determined at such times and for such

1033
periods as the Council think fit, so however that the Council shall be required to amend the allocation during any such period if they are satisfied upon the representation of the executive board for the district that it is necessary to do so in order to meet an increased demand for coal or any class of coal."
I listened attentively to the arguments brought forward by the noble Earl. If he will allow me to say so, I rather thought they were arguments against his own case and strengthened the case for the Amendment I was about to move. In any case, I am sorry to say I can go no further on this, and I must resist the noble Earl's Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I confess I approach the consideration of this Amendment with the profound consciousness that my inexperience in the coal trade might easily lead me into a wrong conclusion. I am only able to form such judgment as I can upon the arguments which have been put forward on each side. Trying to apply my mind impartially, I am bound to say that it does not seem to me that the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken quite meets the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Plymouth. The Amendment which he is going to move in a short time seems a very useful one for providing an easy means of making alterations in the scheme, if from time to time it should appear necessary, but, as I understand the Amendment which the noble Earl has put down and which we are now discussing, its purpose is to provide that in fixing the original allocations regard shall be had to the export trade in such a way as to secure that it shall not be in any way hampered or interfered with.
Prevention is better than cure. It is probable, I should think, that it would have been far better in making the original allotments, to ensure that the export trade is not hampered or restricted rather than to give powers to make an alteration when it is found out that there is a danger of such interference. On that account, giving it such impartial judgment as I can, it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Plymouth is bringing in an Amendment which cannot really vitally hurt the Bill, because it is not mandatory. It only directs that they shall have regard to
1034
these things; and it might improve the Bill, because it makes it quite clear that one of the cardinal features to be borne in mind in making an allocation is that there should be no interference with our export trade. That, it seems to me, is a matter which vitally concerns us all in these days, and anything which is designed to make sure that the importance of that trade and its untrammelled exercise shall not be interfered with does seem to me an Amendment which it would be valuable to have plainly inserted in the Bill. On that ground, my inclination is to accept the view which is put forward by the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: I listened with great care to what the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, said, and there is one point—it seemed to me to be his major point —which I confess I do not quite follow. These are the quotas in all mines of all district—you may put it that way—which are being allocated, and you have only a certain amount to deal with. You cannot allocate with a margin. You have so many tons to distribute among the districts. I understand you start with that in the scheme. The noble Earl desires in fixing the allocations, to have regard to the coal so that export shall not be hampered or restricted. He mentioned, twice I think, an unexpected demand for coal which could not be met. If the demand is unexpected, it is quite obvious you cannot fix the allocation for it in advance. I understand that unexpected demands sometimes occur, and are expected to occur, for coal required for iron and steel purposes, so that similar elasticity is required in a case of that sort. Perhaps the noble Earl will, by leave of the House, say another word and explain exactly how you can decide in advance on an unexpected demand. That rather puzzles me. It seems to me the Amendment which has been put down in the name of the Government covers all that, and enables you, within the space of a day or two at the outside, to meet any unexpected demand which you hear of, by making and obtaining a new allocation when you know what allocation is required. I cannot see what guidance this Council would have in fixing the allocation at the early stage beyond fixing it at what they knew would be required. That they would fix anyhow, because the desire is to produce

1035
as much coal as can be sold. I do not understand that difficulty would be met by the noble Earl.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, listening to the debates on this Bill, and having no technical knowledge, which I think is the case of many on both sides of the House, what occurs to me is the impossibility of working the Bill at all. Take what has been put down by the noble and gallant Lord, who always, I think, tries to treat us as fairly as possible in the matter, if I may say so much to him. Look at it as a matter of business. You suddenly get a large order for the export of coal. You have immediately to rush off, before you can accept that order, and put in an application to the executive board of the district, and they have to report to the general board. Then an inquiry has to be made as to whether in all the circumstances of the case you can grant an additional quota. Particularly you would have to take into account the neighbouring coal fields, as to whether they have not too much and whether it would not be better to transfer some from them. I do not know how business is to be carried on if every time there is an exceptional demand for the export of coal you have to go through all those, proceedings of the district and general council in order to get it through. It will be as bad as having a lawsuit as to whether you are to export the coal or not.
I should have thought that both of these Amendments ought to be put in. It is quite true what the noble Earl has said, that you cannot tell in advance whether there will be some extra call for coal to be exported, but you have to make some sort of estimate from what has happened in the past, and surely it is not an unreasonable thing to say that in fixing the allocation you shall have regard to the amount of coal or coke produced in each district and destined for export overseas with a view to securing that the production, supply and sale of coal and coke so destined shall not be hampered or restricted. The noble Earl asks, how are you to know about this demand for the further export—how are you to fix it? It is to be all guesswork, or largely guesswork, founded upon past trade, and upon all sorts of probabilities, as to whether coal will be wanted. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that you are in a very
1036
disastrous position if you cannot bring your petition before the Council in order to have, under exceptional circumstances, what is provided for in his Amendment. Whether you can carry on business and get contracts under those conditions is another question. If you have not that open to you, it seems to me you will be so hampered that you might as well give up trying to carry on the export trade at all. I would suggest to the Government that both Amendments might be accepted.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, if I might venture to intervene I would do so because I have been concerned for some months past in the attempt to secure some voluntary arrangement, before this Bill was introduced, to adjust the output of the country to the demand for coal so as to prevent undue competition depressing the industry. In considering haw this could best be done we came to the conclusion that the best way would be for each district to arrange what it anticipated would be its normal supply to its customers. We then realised that it would be absolutely essential to have a central body which would be able to allocate to each district what its total allocation would be in accordance with the consumption which it anticipated it would have to meet by its production. We arranged that each district should have its representative on the Central Council so that the whole case should be considered on its merits between district and district., while at the same time there 'would be opportunity for appeal in the event of any district feeling that it was not fairly treated by a majority of those on the central body.
Then we had Amendments such as that of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, which sought, as I think wrongly, to impose on the scheme an allocation suited to the district which the noble Earl represents and is interested in. If that allocation took place it is very obvious that other districts might be in difficulty, because one district might get a bigger allocation on account of its being able to supply the needs of that district and another district would be hit. Exactly the same, I think, is the case in connection with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, because he seeks to try to regulate the allocation according to the production. It is the coal produced that he alludes to in this Amendment. It is important

1037
in connection with the scheme proposed in this Bill that production should meet the consumption which it is fair to allocate to that district. It is because there is a danger of each district thinking only of its production, and not of consumption and of the demand for the coal, that there is a danger of this scheme failing if these Amendments are inserted in connection with aggregate production because we have to consider consumption as well as production.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, in the coal district with which I am best acquainted we depend on our export coal and the noble Earl naturally asked what an unexpected demand might be. Most of our coal goes to the Baltic. A large order from Russia, from the Soviet Government, might be taken to be an unexpected demand. To be able to supply any demand from whatever quarter with the greatest expedition and to leave our coal masters free to meet that demand is the vital question in such a district as that with which I am acquainted, and as the noble Earl the mover of the Amendment is acquainted with in another part of the country. I think that anything that can be done to remove the dead hand of this Bill from the coal masters in exporting districts is to the good, and therefore my view has already been placed, as usually, extremely well by the noble and learned Viscount. I should welcome the insertion of both Amendments in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"() for the district allocation being determined at such times and for such periods as the council think fit, so however that the council shall be required to amend the allocation during any such period if they are satisfied upon the representation of the executive board for the district that it is necessary to do so in order to meet an increased demand for coal or any class of coal;"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the alternative Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to insert this new paragraph. I think I can assure the noble Earl that he will find that in practice this meets all that he requires.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions of district scheme.
(2) Every district scheme shall further provide for the following matters—
(c) for the determination, at such times and for such periods as may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the standard tonnage of every coal mine in the district in respect of coal and, if it is so decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, in respect of any class of coal, so, however, that the method of determination shall be specified in the scheme, and shall be such a method as will insure that, for the purpose of the determination, regard shall be had to the special circumstances of every coal mine (including the efficiency and economy of the working of the coal mine the extent to which it has been developed or is being developed for economic working, the extent to which its output has been increasing or decreasing, and, in the case of the first determination, the proportion which the output of the coal mine bore to the output of the district' during some recent period during which no arrangements made by a voluntary association or otherwise were in force regulating the output of any substantial number of coal mines in the district):
Provided that a district scheme may make provision for the determination of the standard tonnage of, and quota for, any two or more coal mines in the district which are worked by the same colliery undertaking as if they were one coal mine.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), after, "tonnage", to insert "after deducting all coal to be used for the purpose of working the mine and all coal to be supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the same words which I propose to insert in this clause appear in the definition of "Disposal" on page 22, line 26, of the Bill. It seems to me that it is desirable to exclude such coal as it probably varies considerably in quantity from time to time.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("tonnage") insert ("after deducting all coal to be used

1039
for the purpose of working the mine and all coal to be supplied free or at reduced rates of persons employed in or about the mine").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has more than one Amendment dealing with this subject. The object is to exclude colliery consumption and miners' coal from the regulation of output. The basis which was to be adopted for the determination of standard tonnage and the quota was carefully considered in consultation with the coal owners before the Bill was drafted. It could be either output raised and weighed at the pit-head, that is to say, including colliery consumption and coal used for any other purpose after it was raised; or coal disposable commercially. The coal owners expressed the view that it was fairer that the former should be adopted—that is, output raised. The Bill was therefore drafted in that form and, since the coal industry, who are going to work the scheme and this Part of the Bill, desire that output should be so defined, I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Certainly, after what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw. I was unacquainted with what had happened and I put the Amendment down on the chance that it was desirable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2) (d), after paragraph (ii), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"(iii) That a district scheme may provide that where a standard tonnage or a quota has been determined for any mine the colliery undertaking to which the mine belongs may subject to such conditions as the scheme may provide assign such standard tonnage or quota or any part thereof to any other mines in the district and that for the purposes of any subsequent determinations of standard tonnages or quotas the then existing standard tonnages or quotas of such mines shall be deemed to include the amounts so assigned."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down with a view of clearing up a point of some little substance in connection with an undertaking which might close one of its pits in order to concentrate upon output from a remunerative pit. It is not considered that the Bill is quite clear as to what would happen to the quota that is at
1040
tached to the colliery that is being closed down in the event of redetermination of standard tonnage, and it is important that, if any firm for economic purposes closed down one of its collieries which has had a quota output attached to it, there should remain a possibility of that quota being secured and, in order to promote economic working, that it should remain attached to the undertaking, so that more economic collieries can be operated so long as the scheme is in force. It is with a view to securing this that I move the insertion of these words. I hope the Government may see their way to satisfy me either that the Bill meets the point or that these words may be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Gainford.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is, of course, hoped that the effect of the regulation of output will be that the less efficient pits will be absorbed by those that are more efficient, and in order that this may take place the efficient pits must obviously put themselves in the position of securing a larger output as the result of absorbing the less efficient. This can be achieved by giving them the standard tonnage of the pits that they purchase. The view of the draftsman is that this is already secured in the Bill as drafted, and this has been explained to the Mining Association; but in order that there may be no doubt about it I am authorised by the Department to give an assurance to the noble Lord on these lines: That the Department would be prepared to approve a district scheme which contained a provision to the effect that, in the event of a pit or undertaking purchasing another pit, the combined standard tonnage of the two should thereafter he regarded as the standard tonnage of the new undertaking; and that, on any subsequent determination of standard tonnage, the new undertaking should be treated in the same way as any undertaking formed before the previous determination of standard tonnage. I think this assurance will meet the noble Lord's point.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, on that assurance on the part of the Government —and I presume that any subsequent Government will respect it—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say one word? On what sort of basis are we legislating? Are we legislating by a Bill or on the assurance of a Department which may be entirely departed from by any subsequent Government? Why on earth should we take the assurance of a Department? If that assurance is necessary, let it be in the Bill. It is absurd to suggest that you can get out of an obligation that is recognised by the noble Earl opposite simply by saying that you have an assurance from the Department that they will continue to do what the noble Earl suggests that they ought to do. If it ought to be adhered to, let it be in the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I desire to support very strongly the remarks of my noble and learned friend. I think that the idea of interpreting the future administration of a measure by something said in the course of a debate during the progress of the Bill is most dangerous one. If the undertaking is clear and definite, as it is intended to be, is there any conceivable objection to putting it in the Bill itself? If there is no such objection, is not that far the better course to take so that people who have to work the Bill will know where they are and will not have to look up debates to see what has been promised by a Minister? They will see it in the Act. Let me suggest to the noble Earl opposite, who is always reasonable in these matters, that he should put this down as an Amendment on the Third Reading, and if, as appears to be the case, it meets the point raised by Lord Gainford, I am sure the House would approve it.
EARL RUSSELL: If I may say another word by leave of the House, if the noble and learned Earl had listened rather more carefully to what I said, he would have heard me say that, in our view and that of the Parliamentary draftsman, it is already included in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I heard that, and it did not make the slightest difference.
EARL RUSSELL: And as the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the Amendment and is satisfied with it, noble Lords who are not coal owners might as well leave it to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: By leave of the House I should like to say one word more. The noble Earl who has just sat down knows perfectly well that, if any case of this kind is raised in Courts of Law, one thing that may not be mentioned is anything that has been said in debates in this House. Accordingly any assurance that he gives to-day can never be used in a case in a Court of Law. If the noble Earl does not propose to put this down as an Amendment after the Third Reading, I do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (f) of subsection (2), after the last "coal," to insert "exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a slightly different point from that of my last Amendment, because as the Bill stands, if the owner sells at a reduced rate to employees, he would be liable to a penalty, and in order to avoid this liability I propose to insert the words on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, after ("coal") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to permit the continuation of the practice of supplying free or cheap coal to mine workers. It was not intended that this practice should be disturbed by the Bill, but I would suggest to the noble Viscount that, in the view of those who advise us, a better form of this Amendment, while it would achieve the same object, would be to insert the words:—
"exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates for the use of persons employed in or about the mine."
VISCOUNT BERTTE OF THAME: I have great pleasure in accepting that suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, after ("coal") insert ("exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates for the use of persons employed in or about the mine").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Effect of schemes on contracts.
(3) The owner of a coal mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme by reason of the fact that he has, in pursuance of any contract, sold or supplied coal at a price below the minimum price determined in respect of that coal under the scheme at the time of the sale or supply, unless the price at which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied was lower than the minimum price determined in respect thereof under the scheme at the time when the contract was made, or, where no minimum price had then been determined in respect of the coal, unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "by reason of the fact that he has," to insert "supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the same point that I raised in my last Amendment. I do not know what view the noble Earl takes, but it appears to me that the supply of coal free or at reduced prices for employees would form part of the contract of employment, and therefore these words appear to me to be necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, after ("has") insert ("supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, not only do these words make the clause read very badly, but they are in fact unnecessary. We have accepted an Amendment which covers the point and, that being so, the free or cheap coal for miners is excluded from the regulation of prices.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Committees of investigation.
5.—(1) There shall be constituted national committee of investigation consisting of nine members, which shall be charged with the duty of investigating
1044
any complaint made with respect to the operation of the central scheme, and there shall also be constituted for every district a district committee of investigation consisting of five members, which shall be charged with the duty of investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of the district scheme for the district for which the committee is constituted.
(6) If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests or is unfair or inequitable in its operation, it shall be the duty of the committee to report the matter to the Board of Trade, and if, after considering the report and consulting such persons as appear to them to be affected, the Board agree with the opinion of the committee, the Board shall make recommendations to the council or executive board charged with the duty of administering the scheme, with view to the rectification of the matter complained of.
The Board of Trade may hold inquiries for the purpose of assisting them to consider any report made to them under this subsection by a committee of investigation in like manner as they are empowered under Section twenty-two of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, to hold inquiries for the purposes of that Act, and that section shall apply with respect to inquiries held by the Board under this subsection accordingly.
(8) If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme is having or is likely to have an effect contrary to the public interests or is unfair or inequitable, it shall be the duty of the committee to make representations with respect thereto to the persons having power under the scheme to rectify the matter, and if, upon such representations being made, the matter is not dealt with to the satisfaction of the committee, the committee may refer the matter to a single independent arbitrator to be appointed by agreement between the committee and the body charged with the duty of administering the scheme, or, in default of agreement, by the Board of Trade, and the persons having power under the scheme to give effect to the decision shall comply therewith and exercise their functions under the scheme in conformity with the decision.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that no such committee shall be empowered to investigate a complaint

1045
which could be referred to arbitration by the complainant under the provisions of any such scheme."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to prevent investigation by the committee of complaints which would more properly be referred to the arbitrator. The coal owners have their remedy in arbitration, and it was not desired to bring difference between coal owners before committees of investigation. Those who complain have a complete remedy in arbitration under the scheme, and it is desirable they should be limited to that remedy and not trouble the committees with an investigation which is not really germane.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not propose to object to this Amendment, but I wish to call your Lordships' attention to it for the purposes of argument on a later question, which I am going to raise, as to what the particular scheme of arbitration means.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation" and to insert "or is unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price." The noble Earl said: The reason for this Amendment is that the draftsman has advised that the Amendment moved by Lord Halsbury in Committee is not sufficiently explicit to cover what the noble Earl had in mind when he moved his Amendment, and that the words which we propose to substitute will cover the point raised by the noble Earl in a more definite manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("or is unfair or inequitable in its operation") and insert ("or is unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price").—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, this is the most amazing Amendment from a Socialist Government which I have ever known. Will your Lordships read this subsection as it now stand's?
"If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests"—
1046
That is how the subsection read before I put in my Amendment, "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation." These words are now proposed to be left out, and, therefore, a scheme which is unfair and inequitable in its operation is to be left in. That is the effect of it. The noble Earl opposite dissents. I beg the noble Earl's pardon, but may I point out to him that it is exactly what we told him on the Committee stage—namely, that it was contrary to the public interests, and that there was no power in anybody to say that if a scheme was unfair and inequitable it should not be allowed. Therefore we put in these words "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation." Now the noble and learned Earl is proposing that those words shall be taken out, so that a scheme may be allowed, although it is unfair and inequitable.
Then note what he is proposing to insert in the place of those words. He proposes to insert "or is unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price." Does that cover everybody against whom a scheme might be unfair or inequitable? He says he has closed it up. I should think he had. He has left half the populace out of the question. Does he object to saying that if a particular scheme or arbitration is unfair and inequitable it must be cut out altogether? Is that the Socialist idea? Is that the idea of the Party of the People? It does not matter against whom. Somebody may be ruined by it. It does not matter who may be ruined, or what class of person, so long as it is not unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price." Anybody in this country may be ruined by an unfair or inequitable scheme, and the noble and learned Earl says that is a proper method for a Government returned by the Socialist Party to put before the whole country. A more hopeless Amendment than this I cannot possibly imagine.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite appreciate the objection which the noble Earl opposite has to the words of the subsection as they now stand. He will remember that when my noble friend Lord Halsbury moved his Amendment in the Committee stage the suggestion made from the Government side was that the words

1047
might be wide enough to cover the case of coal owners as opposed to coal consumers, and it was proposed that the word "coal consumers" should be added. The limitation to coal consumers has now been achieved by an Amendment which has just been accepted by the House, which limits Clause 5 to cases in which there is no power to refer to arbitration under the earlier clauses. The clause being so limited, what is there objectionable in a provision which enacts that the committee shall have power to take action if it is of opinion that any provision of a, scheme is unfair or inequitable in its operation? Those words are quite precise enough. They are intended to cover every sort of unfairness or inequity. The words which the noble Earl now suggests really only cover some kinds of unfairness, and that is why as at present advised I think the Amendment which he now suggests will make things worse and not better.
When Lord Halsbury moved his Amendment in Committee I said in supporting it that my interest was in the consumer, and this clause is the consumer's clause. I am not troubling about the coal owners, or even the miners, in this clause. One of the matters about which I at any rate felt some anxiety was the power given to the board, in a district consisting exclusively of coal owners, to make such arrangements as might unfairly differentiate against one class or consumer that they did not desire to encourage, and in favour of another class of consumer that they did desire to encourage. They might, for instance, desire to increase the consumption of gas and to discourage the consumption of electricity, and they could do it quite easily by unfairly discriminating between those two classes of consumers in regard to price. As the clause now stands, that would be guarded against, because the person who was unfairly treated would have a right to apply to the committee, but on the clause as it is now proposed to be amended he would have no right at all. That does not seem to me to be what Parliament can intend, or what I hope the Government intend, and I cannot see that there is any real objection to saying that the committee shall have power to interfere if a particular scheme is proved to be, to their satisfaction, unfair or inequitable in its operation to any particular class of
1048
consumer. Therefore, I hope the Government will see their way not to press this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: If your Lordships will allow me, I think the noble and learned Viscount's speech requires the courtesy of some reply, and I will point out to him what, as a lawyer, he will be the first to appreciate. If you are trying, when sitting on this committee of investigation, to construe these words "unfair or inequitable in its operation" you find yourselves completely at large. There is nothing in the words to prevent them from referring to coal owners.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: By reason of the previous Amendment, that is excluded from the committee of investigation.
EARL RUSSELL: It is difficult to see what unfairness other than that of price they can have to deal with. It is the custom in the coal trade to supply coal to different customers at different prices. That was stated and appears to be a well-established custom, and that is inequitable in the sense that we were taught that equity means equality. I think you might put the Consumers' Council in a great difficulty. We were really trying to help the noble Lord who moved this Amendment in the first instance by putting it in a form which we thought would be workable. If that does not meet with your approval I do not know that we can say more than that to commend it, but that was our reason.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: The next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, of course I shall not move.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after subsection (9), to insert the following new subsection:—
"() Any person aggrieved—

(a) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to report to the Board of Trade that any provision of a scheme is contrary to the public interests, or is unfair or inequitable in its operation, or where such a report has been made is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Board of Trade in relation thereto; or

(b) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to refer a complaint to arbitration under subsection (8) of this section;

1049
may, with the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to that Commission who shall have power to make such order as they think fit."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my Amendment would give a limited power of appeal. First of all, they have to go to the Railway and Canal Commission, and unless the Commission grant leave of appeal nothing further will be done. But if they do, then surely, with a body of that kind, it is obviously a matter in which an appeal should lie. I cannot think that the Government could really object to such a very limited leave of appeal. As many of your Lordships know, this idea of a limited power of appeal is by no means new. For instance, the County Court has an appeal to a Divisional Court. Beyond that it cannot go unless either the Divisional Court gives leave to go to the Court of Appeal, or, if you choose to apply to the Court of Appeal over the head of the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal give leave to appeal. There are many other cases in which you go to another Court and say, "I want leave to appeal," and you are not allowed to appeal unless you can make out a prima facie case.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 5, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think something was said about this Amendment during the Committee stage, but the noble Earl and the House will realise that now you are dealing with a committee of investigation, where any member of the public who thinks he is paying too much for his coal, or who has any other grievance, can put that grievance before a committee of investigation. If the committee of investigation think there is a prima facie case and that the scheme is likely to have some effect which is against the national interest, or which is definitely against the interests of some considerable section of the public, they can then start arbitration and set the machinery going. But the noble Earl's Amendment now proposes that any person aggrieved can start the whole of the machinery going, and although the committee of investigation, having looked into it, have come to the conclusion that it is trivial or wrong, none the less he can, on account of that refusal to report to the
1050
Board of Trade, go ahead with the thing, and he can then, with the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to that Commission. I naturally sympathise with the trade union interest of that union of which the noble Earl and myself are fellow members, but I really think this an entirely unreasonable and unworkable provision. The committee of investigation must be given the right to stop in limine perfectly frivolous complaints, of members of the public, and the committee of investigation is not in the least likely to stop complaints that are not frivolous. But here any person who is aggrieved because they refuse to let those complaints go to arbitration is himself to be able to take these steps.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: When the noble Earl says "these steps," it is not "these steps," but "a step". The step he has to take is to get the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission. If that Commission think he ought to have a right of appeal then they can give it to him. But his only step is to get their leave.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps the language I used was not as accurate as it might have been. It is perfectly true that the step he has to take is to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for leave to appeal, but still that in itself will involve the committee of investigation in opposing that application for leave, and will involve a good deal of waste of time and expense, and it really is an unreasonable proposal. It gives every inhabitant of this country the right to go to the Railway and Canal Commission if he thinks his application has been turned down improperly. That will make the scheme unworkable. I hope the noble Earl will not press it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope I am not biased by that trade union interest to which the noble Earl referred, but I am not quite sure that the Amendment is so unreasonable as he suggests. Your Lordships appreciate how this matter arises. We are dealing only with the question of consumers. A consumer thinks he is aggrieved by some decision, or by the operation of the scheme. Under the Bill as it stands the Board of Trade sets up a committee of five people, two representing the coal trade, two representing the consumers, and one

1051
an independent chairman. Any complaint by any consumer comes to that committee, and under the Bill as it stands their decision is final, and there is no redress at all against it.
It apparently has occurred to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment that there might well be cases in which some body was substantially aggrieved, who had a real case, and who did not get a right decision from the committee. After all, he has no voice in the selection of the committee, and when there are only two consumers on the committee it is quite obvious that, with the best will in the world, they cannot represent every class of consumer. If you had one exporter and one domestic consumer, then the big trades and the gas and electricity people would all be left out. If they were in other people would be left out. However fairly the Board of Trade desired to act, obviously they cannot represent every class of consumer. That being so, a consumer may well come before the committee and have nobody there who in the least represents his point of view, indeed people who may be directly in rivalry with him. If they should decide against his application, on the Bill as it stands he has no redress at all. He can apply to nobody. All that this Amendment enacts is that where the committee of investigation refuses to accede to his application he may apply to the Railway and Canal Commission.
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl that it would make the scheme unworkable if any one who had a grievance could go into Court. It is obvious that you would have a scheme flooded with appeals and over-burdened with applications of that kind. The Railway and Canal Commission is a most responsible Court. It is actually the Court which is entrusted by the Bill itself with decisions on most important matters. All that the Amendment provides is that where a person thinks he is aggrieved he may go to the Railway and Canal Commission and ask them whether they think he has a real grievance which requires investigation. That does not seem to me to involve any grave risk, provided you accept, as the noble and learned Earl does accept, that the Railway and Canal Commission is a very responsible judicial body.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That being so, I cannot see that the Amendment, with that protection in it can lead to the dire consequences which the noble and learned Earl suggests, and I would ask him whether it would not give a good deal more condence to the consumers in this country—because, after all, they are the people for whom I speak. I am sorry to say that I know nothing about the coal trade. But we are all consumers either directly by burning coal or indirectly by having electric light or power or gas light, or industrially by using these fuels or powers. These people ought to be given some way of getting to the Court to see whether they have a real case to be judicially determined. If they cannot persuade the Court of that they are stopped, as the noble and learned Earl said, in limine. If the Railway and Canal Commission say: "You have made out no prima facie case," they are stopped. Where they do make a case it is evident to me that they should have it judicially determined. I would urge the noble and learned Earl to reconsider his attitude on these arguments which, as I said, are not put forward in any controversial spirit, but which really do seem to have some weight.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment was considered and fought in another place, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept it. But I cannot, I fear, add anything to the arguments I have already advanced to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Information obtained under Act not to be disclosed.
8. No information with respect to any particular undertaking shall be included in any report published under this Part of this Act by the Board of Trade, the central council, an executive board, the national committee of investigation, or a district committee of investigation, unless the owner of the undertaking agrees thereto, and any person who obtains any information in the exercise of the powers conferred upon the council or upon any executive board by any scheme made in pursuance of this Part of this Act, or conferred upon any such committee by this Part of this Act, shall be required to make a declaration of secrecy in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Trade, and any person who acts in contravention of any declaration which he has so made shall be guilty of a mis-demeanour and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not

1053
exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and line, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the publication or disclosure of any information in so far as it is required to be published or disclosed for the purposes of legal proceedings (including arbitrations) under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder, or for any report of such proceedings, or in so far as it is required or authorised by this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder to be published or disclosed to the Board of Trade, the central council, a committee of investigation or an executive board.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, to leave out "any declaration which he has so made" and to insert "the provisions, of this clause." The noble Viscount said: Under Clause 8 a pledge of secrecy is imposed upon people who obtain information in the course of their employment. Supposing for any reason owing to oversight, or it may be done, perhaps, on purpose by the person in question, no declarations has been made, then he will get off without any penalty at all. If you leave out the words "in contravention of any declaration which he has so made" and insert instead "in contravention of the provisions of this clause" you will still catch him. For that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 37, leave out ("any declaration which he has so made") and insert ("the provisions of this clause").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The effect of this Amendment would be that any one who contravened the provisions of the clause would be guilty of a misdemeanour. The provisions of the clause are that no information with respect to a particular undertaking must be included in a report without the consent of the owner, and that any person who obtains any information by reason of the operation of this Part of the Bill shall be required to make a declaration of secrecy. If the Amendment were accepted, the only offences which would be penalised under the clause would be including information in a report or failing to make a declaration of secrecy. It would not be an offence for a person, having made a declaration of secrecy, to give away secrets. That, I think, is clearly not what the noble Viscount intends.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Not at all.
EARL RUSSELL: No doubt what he wants to do is to ask why the clause imposes a penalty for acting in contravention of a declaration of secrecy, but imposes no penalty for publishing information in a report in contravention of the first part of the clause. The answer is that the publication of information in a report is penalised because if it were published by the Central Council, or an executive board, or a committee of investigation it could only be published in contravention of a declaration of secrecy and it would, therefore, be penalised under the clause. I think that as the noble Viscount's Amendment would not achieve the object he desires and as it is already covered it would be advisable that he should not press it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the noble Earl will just wait a moment, this person has to make a declaration in a prescribed form. If he has not done it and still gives information he gets off without a penalty. If the noble Earl could put down anything on Third Reading which would catch him I should be very much obliged.
EARL RUSSELL: I will certainly have the point considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso, to leave out "under this Part of this Act." The noble Viscount said: If these words are allowed to remain in the Bill a person who becomes a witness in a lawsuit might not be able to be cross-examined thoroughly. I do not know whether that point has occurred to the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("under this Part of this Act").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
EARL RUSSELL: Probably the noble Viscount meant to move to leave out "under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder." If those words were left out the effect would be that information acquired in pursuance of the Bill could be disclosed in any kind of legal proceedings and not only, as is now provided, in legal proceedings taken under the Bill. The question the Amendment

1055
raises is whether information obtained in pursuance of the Bill is on a par with confidential information on affairs of State, which is privileged from disclosure in legal proceedings. On the whole it is thought that information obtained in pursuance of the Bill is hardly comparable with State secrets and should not be protected by the same privilege. Therefore, if the noble Viscount would move his Amendment in the form I suggested, to leave out "under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder," I Should be willing to accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I fall in readily with that suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 4 and 6, leave out ("under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendments of Part I of 16 & 17 Geo. 5, c. 28.
11.—(1) If it appears to the Board of Trade that it is expedient for the purpose of promoting the more economical and efficient working, treating or disposing of coal that an amalgamation scheme or an absorption scheme, under Part I of the Mining Industry Act, 1926 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Act of 1926"), should be prepared and submitted with respect to any two or more undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines, the Board shall require the owners of those undertakings to prepare and submit to the Board an amalgamation scheme or absorption scheme with respect to those undertakings framed in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Act of 1926, and if the owners fail so to submit such a scheme within such a time as may have been specified by the Board, the Board shall themselves prepare such a scheme, and for the purposes of that Part of that Act any scheme so prepared shall be deemed to have been prepared and submitted in manner provided by subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, of Section one of that Act and that Act shall apply accordingly:
Provided that—
(b) no such scheme of amalgamation shall provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking, for the separation of the treating and disposing of coal from the working thereof, or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining, for the separation
1056
from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary for such primary object.
(3) If the owner of any undertaking (in this subsection referred to as the "transferor undertaking") proposed by ally scheme prepared by the Board of Trade under this section to be amalgamated with or absorbed in, any other undertaking (in this subsection referred to as the "transferee undertaking") satisfies the Railway and Canal Commission that any money or securities belonging to the transferor undertaking formed, at the date of the passing of this Act, a reserve which, when the scheme was submitted, was not required for the efficient carrying on of the transferor undertaking, the Railway and Canal Commission shall not confirm the scheme except after making such modifications, if any, as may be necessary for securing that the money or securities will not be transferred to the transferee undertaking.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a manuscript Amendment on Clause 11 which I have handed to the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think that a manuscript Amendment is in order at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is important that we should get these things right. A manuscript Amendment is in order on the Report stage of a Bill although, unless it is a small matter of routine or drafting, or something of that kind, it is not very convenient. But your Lordships' House have very often admitted it. Where a manuscript Amendment is not in order is on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Amendment is in subsection (3), after "securities," to insert "or real or personal property." I only put this in manuscript form because I had hoped that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thomson, would have fulfilled his under-taking to bring forward words on Report. I moved certain words in Committee and Lord Thomson proposed that I should put in the word "property." Lord Darling objected to that and said:—
"You have property in something. It is not a substantive thing. You cannot see it or handle it. You have property in something. You may call it personal property or real property, but to put into an Act of Parliament simply the word 'property' thinking you are putting in securities of all sorts would, I think, be a very dangerous thing to do."

1057
Then my noble friend Lord Hailsham said:—
"I do not like accepting a word quite so hastily, and perhaps the best plan would be that the Amendment should be dropped on the understanding that the Government will consult their legal advisers and the Lord Chancellor, and bring forward whatever they think is the proper word on the Report stage."
Then I said:—
"If the noble and gallant Lord would undertake to do that I shall be quite satisfied."
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said:—
"I gladly accept that. This was debated in another place and this form of words was eventually adopted as most suitable. All the objections raised by the noble Viscount were put forward in that debate. I accept the suggested solution."
As the noble and gallant Lord had not put anything on the Paper I handed in this manuscript Amendment in order to cover certainly land and any other thing.
EARL RUSSELL: What is the page?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Clause 11, page 17, line 40.
THE LORD SPEAKER (EARL BEAU-CHAMP): The Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, must come before it.
EARL RUSSELL: I can get my Amendments out of the way. They are both drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("for") and insert ("to").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Might I make an addition to what was said by the noble Marquess? Would it not be more convenient that a copy of manuscript Amendments should be supplied to whoever occupies the Woolsack?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I did supply a copy to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who usually occupies the Woolsack.
THE LORD SPEAKER: The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, will come before that of the noble Viscount.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at the end of subsection (1) "and belonging to or controlled by such undertaking." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which stands in my name is one that I moved in Committee stage, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thomson, kindly undertook to consider it before Report stage. He has very courteously done so, but his first communication in regard to it I only received this morning. It was unfavourable to the words proposed by me, which are considered to be too wide. Since then I have had the advantage of a consultation with the noble and gallant Lord and his adviser, and I understand, if the Amendment were moved in another form, it might be acceptable to the Government. With the consent of the House, I should like to move the Amendment in the form I will now read:—
(c) No coal mine belonging to a company whereof all the shares are held by the owner of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining shall, so long as it is worked as ancillary to such primary object, be amalgamated or absorbed by virtue of a scheme prepared under this section without the consent of the owner of that undertaking.
The effect of those words is rather more precise and rather more limited than mine. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 17, line 9, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
EARL RUSSELL: We accept the Amendment in this form.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "securities," to insert "or real or personal property." The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships may have noticed, I am always loath to impose myself upon you for any length of time, and, having put forward my arguments, I do not repeat them.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 40, after ("securities") insert ("or real or personal property").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount is right in what he said. I must admit we are to blame in this matter. We did promise to consider it and bring up a form of words on Report. I regret that,

1059
through inadvertence, that promise has not been carried out. I am not in a position to say off-hand whether the words are right or not, but we will put them in the Bill now and consider them on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to constitute Coal Mines National Industrial Board and functions thereof.
(2) Before appointing any person to fill a vacancy among the members of the National Board, the Board of Trade shall consult the body (if any) which they were required by this section to consult before appointing his predecessor.
(5) Where there exists, or is apprehended, any dispute between the owners of and the workers employed in or about the coal mines in any district as to the terms of an existing agreement or a proposed agreement between such owners and workers providing for the regulation of wages or other conditions of labour throughout the coal mines in the district, and there has been a failure to settle the dispute in accordance with the arrangements existing in the district for the settlement thereof, either the owners or the workers may refer the dispute to the National Board who shall thereupon inquire into the dispute and report thereon to the owners and workers concerned.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of an Amendment at the end of subsection (2), to insert:—
"If a member becomes in the opinion of the Board of Trade unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under this Act the Board shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall notify the fact in such manner as it thinks fit and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
"A member may resign his office by notice in writing under his hand given to the Chairman of the Board."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the usual sort of clause to have in these Bills. A similar clause appears in the Port of London Authority Act, and, since then, in the Electricity Supply and Road Transport Bills and the Land Drainage Bill. Ever since the Port of London Authority Act it has been put in veiled form to cover cases of bankruptcy or imprisonment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am advised that no part of this Amendment is really necessary because it is inherent in the clause as it stands, but there is no great harm in it, except that in the latter part the resignation should be notified to the Board of Trade, which has to appoint the members, and not the Chairman of the Industrial Board. If the noble Viscount would put it in that form "under his hand given to the Board of Trade," we would be prepared to accept his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble Earl and move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, at end insert ("If a member becomes in the opinion of the Board of Trade unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under this Act the Board shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall notify the fact in such manner as it thinks fit and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
"A member may resign his office by notice in writing under his hand given to the Board of Trade").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "an existing agreement or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett is here, but this is an Amendment which I accepted in Committee somewhat hastily, and, as a matter of fact, it did not carry out either what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, desired, or what we desired. I consulted him with regard to it afterwards, and he agrees it should come out at this stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 40, leave out ("an existing agreement or").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
application of 52 & 53 Viet. c. 49.
(2) No scheme or rules approved or made under Part I of this Act shall exclude the application of the Arbitration Act, 1889. to any arbitration held in pursuance of that Part of this Act except in so far as that Act is inconsistent with that Part of this Act:
Provided that where on any such arbitration an award is stated in the form of a

1061
special case for the opinion of the court under paragraph (b) of Section seven of that Act the decision of the High Court thereon shall be final.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to leave out the proviso at the end of the clause. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with the Government over this. I thought they had agreed with me in Committee about a lot of Amendments in Clause 5 in reference to "unfair and inequitable." Then I find that they have cut all these out. Because they agreed, I thought it would be better perhaps that I should not move an Amendment that was down in my name on the Committee stage, Clause 14, page 27, and they seemed to be rather pleased that I should not do that in order that they might have some consideration as to whether the wording might be altered. I am bound to confess that having got those two concessions I am disappointed to find that all my Amendments in Clause 5, which so far had been agreed to, are cut out and nothing done for me on Clause 14.
The noble Earl opposite takes a curious view. I do not quite understand what his position is. Does he stand as a trade unionist. He is always twitting me with being a member of the same union as himself. I am not quite certain about that. But the point which I made was a very simple one, and it is this. Why in these very important questions, when you go to a board of arbitration, are you not allowed the ordinary rights of the ordinary citizen in a commercial case, which may be of far less importance than a case that comes under this Bill? Why are you not allowed the ordinary rights of appeal? Here you are only allowed to go to a Judge of First Instance, and you are not allowed an appeal beyond him. What earthly reason is there why you should not be allowed to go to the Court of Appeal in these arbitrations, which are very important ones? The noble Earl opposite cannot possibly say that they are not. The noble and gallant Lord who was in charge of this Bill part of the time had no doubt at all that they are important arbitrations, and the other noble and learned Lord who took tripartite responsibility for the Bill also did not seem to think that they were of a very unimportant character.
Why on earth should not the person who is aggrieved go as any ordinary
1062
citizen of this country to the Court of Appeal and the highest Court of Appeal? Why should it be that he is to be stopped at the first Court? The effect of my Amendment is simply, by leaving out from line 39 to the end of that subsection of the clause, to omit the provision that you are not to be allowed an appeal in this arbitration. I ask your Lordships to say that in this very important question the person affected should have exactly the same rights as every other person in this country and be allowed, as in other arbitrations, to go if he chooses to the highest Court of Appeal in the country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, leave out from beginning of line 39 to the end of the clause.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is, briefly, that this Bill is not intended to deal with constitutional points or to elucidate legal difficulties. It is primarily a Bill dealing with industry, and the objection to this Amendment and to Amendments of this character is the objection of time. It is desired to get things done and not to argue about them.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: At the expense of an individual?
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl will perhaps allow me to finish. To get things done and to carry on with the business. These matters will all have to do with the working of the coal industry and there is an appeal to arbitration. That in itself will be inconvenient—it means delay—but it is a measure of protection to the coal owner which is essential because he must have a chance of stating his case and having a decision. It is essential also to permit the stating of a case by the arbitrator for decision by the High Court. But the Government think that having given that arbitration and that appeal to the High Court they have introduced quite enough delay in the conduct of a commercial undertaking. You cannot really wait two or three years for a decision—
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: You will not do that.
EARL RUSSELL:—although no doubt it would be an excellent decision when

1063
it was given. Meanwhile you would hamper the carrying on of the industry. You could not get the cases considered and discussed in any sort of reasonable time or without considerable expense. I do not know why the noble Earl should think that when cases have been fully considered by an arbitrator and, if necessary, considered by the Court of Appeal, it is likely that injustice would have been done between subject and subject. In criminal matters you have no appeal.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Oh, yes you have. You can appeal up to the House of Lords.
EARL RUSSELL: No.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Oh yes, I beg pardon. I must ask the noble Earl to reconsider that.
EARL RUSSELL: I know all about the provisions of the Act about an appeal to the House of Lords, but in ordinary criminal cases you have no appeal to the House of Lords. It is only on particular questions. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I do not think that anybody connected with the coal industry can really desire the prospect of interminable litigation. Their real desire is to get on with their business. I think the noble Earl would be wiser not to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: After what the noble Earl has said—if he will forgive me for not agreeing with him—I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEXHAM) BILL.
Referred to the Examiners.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Board of Education Scheme (Devon, Crediton Exhibition Foundation) Confirmation.

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Second Report, being a report upon the London Building Acts (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.], now the London Building Bill [H.L.], made, and to be printed.
SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed for Tuesday next.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DOCKS) BILL.
  KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL.
  Committed for Tuesday next.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.