Sitting of 28 April 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Cambridge Corporation Bill,
Trent Navigation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Kettering Gas Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is now able to state the policy of the Government with reference to the ratification of the Washington Eight-hours Convention; and if any statement on this point was made at the meeting of the International Labour Office at Geneva this week?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My right hon. Friend dealt with this matter in the course of a speech which he made on 23rd April at the International Labour Conference now in Session. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the passage relating to the Washington. Hours Convention.
  Mr. MANDER: Did the right hon. Gentleman make any statement of the definite policy of the Government in regard to this matter?
  Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the statement.
  Mr. MANDER: If I put down a question this day twelve months, am I likely to receive a definite answer?
  Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that is a hypothetical question.
  Following is the passage:
  "In other portions of his report, the director makes reference again to the Washington Hours Convention. He says that 'the office is powerless at present to direct the attention of the Government, or even of opinion among the workers, to the Hours Convention or other important measures which were previously regarded as the best means of preventing unfair competition.' I will not take up time with discussing the question whether the limitation of hours irrespective of the protection of wages is really of great value, except to say that wages constitute the most important factor in determining the standard of life. I will address myself only to the subject of the Hours Convention.
  "That Convention was drafted and settled within limits of time in which no national legislature would attempt to draft and pass finally a law on an important subject except in a case of great emergency. As early as 1921 the British Government indicated that it could not ratify the Convention owing, inter alia, to difficulties which would be caused in respect of certain collective agreements and established conditions of a favourable character which the ratification of the Convention would have endangered or made impossible to maintain. Great Britain indicated that she would be prepared to enter into discussions for the purpose of revising the Convention. To this there was no response. In 1924 the first Labour Government prepared a Bill but could make no progress doubtless by reason of similar difficulties to those encountered earlier. In 1926 the Government of which I was a member called a conference in London to discuss questions of interpretation. Certain conclusions were reached as to how the countries concerned could secure uniformity of administration but it was clear that, even so, revision of the Convention or some additional international agreement would be necessary, if ratification was to be secured. I myself, as a member of the governing body, made proposals for revision without success. The last Labour Government prepared legislation with, no doubt, every intention of endeavouring to take definite action. But they also were unable to make progress and it is common knowledge that closer examination disclosed dangers to trade union agreements of great value to certain classes of workers if the provisions of the Convention without amendment were made law. In any case it is obvious that practical difficulties and not lack of sympathy have prevented the ratification of the Convention in a country which, in spite of long depression, maintains in practice a normal working week of 48 hours or less. The present Government will give

  551
  the matter further consideration when other more urgent matters have been disposed of but it would be folly to ignore the serious practical difficulties."

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour when it is anticipated that the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance will be issued?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid I cannot name an exact date.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea when the Commission is likely to report?
    Mr. HUDSON: I understand that the Commission is meeting quite often to consider the actual draft.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the Press reports about the delay of the Commission in coming to a decision, is there no method of approach which the hon. Gentleman can make to ensure that they shall come to an early decision, seeing that matters are being held up?
    Mr. HUDSON: As far as I know, there is no truth at all in that suggestion.

    TRANSFER OF WORKERS (SEALAND).
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in connection with the structural alterations and additions which are being carried out at the aerodrome of His Majesty's Air Force situate at Sealand, in the county of Flint, workmen are being sent for employment from among the men on the register at the Chester Employment Exchange; and whether, as the whole of the aerodrome is situate in the county of Flint and there is considerable unemployment in this part of Flintshire, he will arrange that, in filling vacancies at the aerodrome, persons registered in the Flintshire Employment Exchanges shall have preference over men residing outside the county?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    TRAINING CENTRE, BRISTOL.
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons from depressed areas attending Government training and industrial centres in the Bristol area at the latest convenient date?
    Mr. HUDSON: On 25th April 212 men, drawn from the depressed areas, were attending the Bristol Government training centre.

    CINEMAS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour if he has yet carried out his investigation into the conditions of labour prevailing among workers in cinemas; and, if so, whether he is satisfied with such wages and conditions?
    Mr. HUDSON: Owing to shortage of available staff, it has not been possible recently to make any further progress with this inquiry.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it the intention to continue the investigation?
    Mr. HUDSON: I cannot give any definite pledge at the moment, but it is one of the matters which will come up for consideration shortly.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that very grave charges have been made concerning the conditions?

    ALIENS (CIRCUS PERFORMERS).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Circus Gleich visited Paris some time ago and was closed down and sent tack to Germany after two weeks; and whether he will ascertain the reasons for this as a guide to his attitude towards the proposed visit to this country?
    Mr. HUDSON: Allegations of this sort had already been made, and after inquiry the Department was unable to find any foundation for them. If the hon. Member has any definite evidence and will communicate it to me, I shall be glad to make further inquiries.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether the terms of the permit granted to the artistes of the Circus Gleich confine their work with the

    553
    circus to their professional performances; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the permits so that their duties with the circus will not include the work of building up or removing the circus from place to place?
    Mr. HUDSON: It is proposed that the permits issued to artists shall prohibit them from taking engagements outside the circus performances. As regards the second part of the question, I have no reason to suppose that any interchange of duties of this sort is likely to apply to any of those for whom permits are issued as artists.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to find out whether it is the custom for those artists to take down and put up the circus in addition to taking part in the actual performances, and, if that is so, will he take steps to prohibit it being done in order to enable employment to be given to British workers in putting up and taking down the circus?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will certainly look into the matter.

    SPECIAL POLICE CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. RHYS DAV1ESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his approval has been given to the employment on ordinary duties of the Special Constabulary; and whether the employment at any time of members of this force is in uniform or plain clothes at the option of either the police authority or the special constables?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I have already explained in reply to previous questions that the Metropolitan Special Constabulary have not been asked to offer their services for ordinary duties: the position is that an opportunity has been afforded for a few at a time to volunteer for a short period of training, in uniform or plain clothes as may be more appropriate. When they are called up for emergency or ceremonial duty those who have uniform wear it.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary whether equipment and warrant cards are withdrawn from special constables on severing their connection with the force; and, if so, in how many cases has this not been carried out?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: All members of the Metropolitan special constabulary reserve are required to return their equipment and warrant cards on resignation, and this is in fact done except in cases in which special constables cannot be traced at the addresses which they have given. There is no record of the number of such cases.

    EDUCATION (MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education whether the proportion of mentally-deficient children to ordinary school children is on the increase or decline in England and Wales?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): During the last few years for which returns are available there has been practically no variation in the proportion of children in public elementary schools formally ascertained by school medical officers as mentally defective, but I am afraid that these figures cannot be used as a reliable guide to the actual incidence of this form of defect, owing to the absence of a strict uniformity of standard, and to other difficulties. The hon. Member will find a full discussion of the matter in paragraphs 86–90 of the Report of the Joint Committee of the Board of Education and the Board of Control on the subject of Mental Deficiency, which was published in 1929.

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Health the number of interim development orders refused each year since 1922 in respect of schemes under the Town Planning Acts now in course of preparation?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The procedure of interim development orders was not instituted by Statute until 1919. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Proceedings the number of appeals to me and the number refused since 1920. I have no information of the number of applications refused by local authorities in regard to which no appeal was made.
    Following are the figures:
    The numbers of applications and appeals to me annually since 1919 and the numbers refused by me are as follow:

    —

    Nos. of Applications or Appeals

    Nos. refused.

    Year ending 31st March, 1920

    2

    —

    Year ending 31st March, 1921

    14

    —

    Year ending 31st March, 1922

    20

    1

    Year ending 31st March, 1923

    40

    3

    Year ending 31st March, 1924

    35

    4

    Year ending 31st March, 1925

    29

    3

    Year ending 31st March, 1926

    47

    8

    Year ending 31st March, 1927

    56

    13

    Year ending 31st March, 1928

    107

    28

    Year ending 31st March, 1929

    101

    32

    Year ending 31st March, 1930

    134

    43

    Year ending 31st March, 1931

    180

    51

    Year ending 31st March, 1932

    185

    48

    The balance (except 55 still unsettled at 31st March last) were either allowed, or withdrawn after settlement by agreement, or otherwise lapsed.

    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the draft town-planning scheme of the Doncaster Rural District Council schedules 8,071 acres of rich agricultural land all in a ring fence as being unsuitable for the erection of houses since it does not exceed 25 feet above ordnance datum; that with the potential revival of agriculture more cottages will be required for agricultural labourers in the locality; and whether he will take steps to see that cottages for agricultural labourers are exempt from the conditions of the scheme?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The Doncaster Rural District Council have not yet submitted to me their town planning proposals and I am not aware of the proposal referred to. My hon. Friend may rest assured that any proposal likely to restrict the provision of cottages for agricultural workers will receive my careful consideration.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Will it be possible for my right hon. Friend to communicate with the district council in view of the expense to which landowners and farm occupiers have been put now that the scheme has been advertised?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I can take no action under the Statute until, in due course, the scheme is put up to me.

  POOR LAW.

    BELIEF.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of poor relief on 31st March, 1931, and on 31st March, 1932?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The total numbers of men, women and children in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales on the last Saturday in March, 1931, and March, 1932 (including casuals and persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief) were 1,055,591 and 1,219,875, respectively. The figures do not include rate-aided patients in mental hospitals.

    CASUALS (TASKS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether stone breaking and oakum picking is entirely abolished in the casual wards of the workhouses of England and Wales?
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Oakum picking is no longer permitted as a task for casuals. Stone breaking is allowed only under the conditions suggested by the recent Departmental Committee on the Relief of the Casual Poor, and is at present practised within those limits in three casual wards.
    Mr. GROVES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me if there is any profit attaching to this work?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will convey that question to my right hon. Friend.

    NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health what additional benefits are payable to insured persons in the Navy, Army, and Air Force insurance fund; what is the number of members not serving in the Forces of the Crown; and if their contributions are deducted from their pensions?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Additional benefits are payable only to members of the Navy, Army, and Air Force insurance fund who have been discharged from the Forces. The number of such members is about

    557
    16,000, and the additional benefits to which they are entitled are:

    Sickness benefit, 4s. per week.

    Disablement benefit, 2s. per week.

    Maternity benefit, 8s.

    Dental and ophthalmic benefit and medical and surgical appliances.

    When such men are in employment weekly contributions are payable by their employers, who are entitled to deduct the employé's portion from his wages. Voluntary contributors may, if they desire, have their contributions deducted from their pensions.

    DEAF AND DUMB PERSONS.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation providing assistance for the deaf and dumb on similar lines to that given to the blind under the Blind Persons Act?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation of the sort.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    BEER DUTY.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of revenue received up to 31st March from the taxation of beer since the imposition of the additional 31s. 6d. per barrel in 1931, and the total amount received during the same period in 1930–31?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The total revenue received up to 31st March last from beer in respect of which Excise duty was charged at the increased rate was £32,085,000. I regret that no figure is available for the corresponding period in 1930–31, since payments in respect of brewings during the month of September, 1930, cannot be split into the periods before and after 11th September, whereas September, 1931, was automatically split by the change in the rate of duty.
    Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider an alteration in the law making it compulsory for the brewers to state the gravity of their products when sold to the public?
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think that this matter is within the province of the Treasury.

    SILK DUTIES.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase in imports of knitted undergarments of artificial silk by 900 per cent. from 1926 to 1931, and the consequent hardship to the industry in this country and loss of revenue to the Exchequer, he will take steps to deal with this matter?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Silk Duties generally on the 21st April during the Debate on the Budget proposals.
    Mr. LEVY: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the making-up side of this industry has practically gone out of existence, and that thousands of people who normally would be employed are now out of work in consequence?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot discuss the matter by question and answer across the Floor of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer heard the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend, and he answered it during the Budget Debates.
    Mr. LEVY: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend, with great respect and humility, if he did not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he could not yield to this proposition, because in his opinion it would mean loss of revenue?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot go beyond the reference which I have given in my answer.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the growing imports of artificial silk tissues, and that these imports increased since 1926 to 1931 by 150 per cent.; and whether he proposes to take any steps to rectify this position and help British labour?
    Major ELLIOT: As regards the first part of the question I am aware that the increase in the quantity of artificial silk tissues imported in 1931 as compared with 1926 was approximately 150 per cent. As regards the second part of the question I would refer ray hon. and gallant Friend

    559
    to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the silk duties generally during the Debate on the Budget proposals on the 21st April.
    Mr. LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the margin of production in this industry is in favour of the foreigner?
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remove the Excise Duty of 6d. from artificial silk waste, seeing that the selling price of waste artificial silk in this country is approximately 2d. per lb. and consequently quantities of artificial silk waste are destroyed under supervision of the Customs and Excise Department rather than pay an Excise Duty of 6d., which would involve the manufacturer in a loss of 4d. per lb?
    Major ELLIOT: The duty in question is an integral part of the silk tariff and could not be considered separately. I am informed that the price and quality of waste varies appreciably and that the quantity which manufacturers find it necessary to destroy because of its inferiority is but a small proportion of the total amount produced.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the duty on made-up articles of artificial silk (underwear, etc.) is 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem, while the duties on artificial silk yarn and piece goods are specific, so that the imported finished article often pays less duty than the raw material; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?
    Major ELLIOT: I am aware that in exceptional cases of made-up articles of low value the ad valorem duty may be less than the specific duty on the kind of materials used in their manufacture. I have no reason, however, to suppose that the general incidence of the Silk and Artificial Silk Duties is unfavourable to the maker-up of garments in this country, and I doubt if it would be possible to make special provision to meet all exceptional cases.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the case of raw materials the duty
    560
    is on weight, whereas in the case of the manufactured article it is charged on value? With falling prices, is he not aware that the balance is turned against the manufacturer in this country, so that it is cheaper to import the manufactured silk rather than import the raw material to make the goods?
    Major ELLIOT: I am aware of these facts, and it is on account of these facts that I am receiving certain hon. Members this afternoon who desire to discuss the question with me.
    Mr. LEVY: As I have pointed out these anomalies to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman many times, will he tell us what steps he intends to take to remove the anomalies?
    Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member must be aware that it is not in the power of any single Minister, certainly not of any junior Minister, to take steps to alter the revenue of this country.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that foreign silk manufacturers who were negotiating for the purchase of derelict mills in Scotland have discontinued these negotiations owing to the fact that he has made no change in the Silk Duties; and what action he proposes to take to assist this industry?
    Major ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Silk Duties generally during the Debate on the Budget proposals on 21st April.
    Mr. LEVY: May I ask. as it is the policy of the Government to encourage manufacturers to come to this country, how can that policy be carried out in face of the failure to—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Have the Government taken any steps in connection with this matter of buying silk factories in Scotland to see that it is done under proper conditions, in view of the fiasco which arose out of the last purchase of silk factories?
    Major ELLIOT: The Government are not themselves taking any steps in connection with the purchase of factories for silk manufacture.
    Mr. HAMMERS LEY: Arising out of the original reply, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that a certain amount of responsibility attaches to the Government in connection with the new factories which have been started under the auspices of the expected tariff proposals; and that the fact that there is no alteration in the tariff makes those new factories inadvisable from an economic point of view?
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think that that arises out of this question.

    SURTAX AND SUPER-TAX PAYEES.
    Major MILLSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider laying before the House now, and at the end of each financial year, a return giving the names of Surtax and Super-tax payers who owe more than £1,000 and are more than one year in arrear with the amounts?
    Major ELLIOT: No, Sir. It would be definitely contrary to public policy to make any such departure from the condition of secrecy that necessarily attaches to the liability of the individual taxpayer.

    WINES AND SPIRITS (DUTY).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information showing the quantity of new whisky used to reinforce cheap wines which escapes paying the duty of 72s. 6d. a proof gallon payable on three-year old whisky, the minimum age at which whisky may be sold for consumption as whisky?
    Major ELLIOT: I regret that such information is not available.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS (HOURS OF DUTY).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the proposals that have been made to him in favour of an extension of the customary hours for the performance of certain classes of duties
    562
    undertaken by officers of Customs and Excise, he is aware of the feeling in that service against any such extension; and whether he will ascertain and consider the views of the various grades of officials concerned before coming to a decision?
    Major ELLIOTAll relevant circumstances will be taken into consideration in connection with the proposals referred to by the hon. Member.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Agriculture the total travelling expenses incurred by his Department during the last year; and how much of this sum was paid in first-class railway fares?
    The MINISTER of ARICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The total amount of travelling expenses (excluding subsistence allowances) incurred by the staff of the Ministry during the 12 months ended February last, which is the last year for which figures are available, was approximately £58,000. Of this sum approximately £9,000 was paid in first-class railway fares.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing third-class rather than first-class fares, in the interest of economy.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This matter is governed by Treasury regulations applicable to all Departments and would have to be considered on that basis.

    COINAGE (COUNTERFEIT SIXPENCES).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the House any information as to the counterfeit sixpences which are in circulation?
    Major ELLIOT: While the number of counterfeit sixpences reported by the police in 1931 showed an increase over previous years, it remains quite trivial, the face value of counterfeit sixpences being £20 14s. 6d. against a circulation of about £5,000,000 worth of the genuine sixpences. I am advised that most of the counterfeits are too crudely made to be passed in ordinary circulation.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cause the widest publicity to be given to the very reassuring statement that he has made this afternoon in order to prevent the apprehensions of the public?
    Major ELLIOT: I think the question and answer will give the fullest publicity.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many of these counterfeit sixpences are found in Scotland?
    Mr. CROSSLEY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are counterfeit half-crowns in existence?
    Major ELLIOT: Yes, but a very small number in comparison with the increase that is taking place in the number of counterfeit sixpences.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the better effect that would be created by the manufacturing of sixpences and half-crowns in real silver and not amalgam?
    Major ELLIOT: No. I understand that these sixpences are mostly for use in automatic machines, which are not impressed by real silver any more than by counterfeit coins.

  AGRICULTURE.

    AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the recent raising of additional capital by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, he can state what steps it is intended to take to revive the interest of farmers in the facilities made available to them by this corporation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation continues to receive applications for loans which each week amount in aggregate to considerable sums of money. The facilities offered by the corporation appear to be well known to farmers and I see no reason for taking the action suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that British farmers are finding it very difficult to obtain loans from the banks, who seem very reluctant to operate this Act?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend is referring to short-term loans, which are a matter for the joint stock banks.

    SUGAR-BEET (PRICE).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture what price it will be possible for the respective sugar-beet factories to pay farmers for sugar-beet in the forthcoming season, in consequence of the continuation of the additional assistance of 1s. 3d. per cwt. for the coming year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The price which a beet-sugar factory can afford to pay for beets depends upon many and varying factors, one of which is the price realisable for the sugar when produced and marketed. The beet-sugar factories had offered contracts to growers before the announcement of the reduction in the Excise duty was made. Thirteen of the 17 factories that will operate in the coming season have contracted at firm prices of 40s. or 42s. per ton (15½ per cent. beets): the contracts of the remaining four factories are on a co-operative basis with a minimum price of 35s. per ton (15½ per cent. beets).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Instead of the word "co-operative" being used in the latter part of the reply, ought it not to be on a "gambling" basis?

    UNLET FARMS, EASTERN COUNTIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information as to the number of farms which are unlet this year in the Eastern Counties?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that this information is not available.

    BARLEY, BACON AND MEAT INDUSTRIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the hardship caused to farmers and agricultural labourers by the delay in dealing with the barley, bacon and meat industries; and if he will announce at an early date steps to be taken to assist these branches of agriculture?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the important branches of agriculture to which he draws attention are receiving my earnest consideration. I am not, however, in a position to add anything to statements I have already made on the subject.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay has resulted in a good many bankruptcies in Lincolnshire?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the producers of meat, bacon and barley have done anything to help themselves on a co-operative basis?

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will appoint a reorganisation committee to consider the whole question of organisation and marketing for the poultry industry?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The need for marketing organisation and the best method of approach thereto are being actively considered by representative bodies of poultry producers, and I see no reason to intervene.

    SMALLHOLDINGS.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of smallholdings in each of the counties in England and Wales and give an indication of the number of smallholders engaged in poultry farming and the raising of early vegetables under glass or cloches?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer necessarily involves a long statement of figures, I am writing to the hon. Member giving him such information as is available.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cattle slaughtered as the result of foot-and-mouth disease in 12 months to the last convenient date and the amount of compensation paid?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In the 12 months from, 24th April, 1931, to 23rd April, 1932, 3,654 cattle, 5,409 sheep, 1,204 swine, and four goats were slaughtered in connection with outbreaks of foot-
    566
    and-mouth disease, and £96,433 13s. was paid as compensation to the owners of the animals.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Did any of the goats come from Carnarvon?
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Is the policy of the Board the same to-day as it was last year in connection with the slaughter of animals on a farm attacked by foot-and-mouth disease?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Generally, we are maintaining the slaughter policy, but we are experimenting in some cases.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the actual figures of compensation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The actual amount of compensation was £95,483 13s.

    IMPORTED POTATOES.
    Mr. McKIEasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to see that the Ministry of Agriculture shall in future be as strict with regard to the licensing of imported potatoes for seed purposes as the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The regulations governing the entry and planting of imported potatoes have been in operation for some eight years, and have proved effective in preventing the introduction of wart disease. They are, however, reconsidered from time to time in the light of experience and I will give the matter my attention.
    Mr. McKIE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable apprehension is felt in Scotland as to the laxity of the English authorities in this direction, having regard to the danger of disease from potatoes imparted from abroad?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that I am looking into the matter at the present time.

    BANKRUPTCIES, LINCOLNSHIRE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to the number of farmers and smallholders in Lincolnshire who have had to give up owing to bankruptcy and failure to meet their obligations, together with the total acreage concerned?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The number of farmers and smallholders in the areas of the Great Grimsby, Lincoln and Boston Bankruptcy Courts who failed in 1931 under either the Bankruptcy Act or the Deeds of Arrangement Act was 77. No information is available as to the acreage concerned.

    COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that 20 committees and commissions appointed by the two previous Governments are still sitting and that six commissions and committees have been set up by the present Government, he will take the necessary steps to have a time limit fixed for all committees?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): It would not be practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is of course possible to ask committees to expedite their work, or parts of it, and this is done where desirable.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is it not practicable to sack the whole lot?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not possible to appoint someone as the director of commissions and committees?
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Prime Minister whether there is any co-operation between the Tariff Advisory Committee and the Economic Advisory Committee; and whether the functions of the latter have in any way been affected by the appointment of the former?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the first part of the question, the Tariff Advisory Committee is an independent statutory body which has power to consult with any Government Department should it think it desirable to do so; the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    AIR SERVICES (CAPE TO CAIRO).
    Captain CAZALETasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it has yet been decided when the Cape-to-Cairo service will be opened to passengers south of Kisumu?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): This section of the route is now open to passenger traffic, and flights commenced yesterday both from London and Cape Town.
    Captain CAZALET: Can the Undersecretary say when the new aeroplane will be ready for the Cape-to-Cairo service?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I must have notice of that question.

  TRANSPORT.

    PICCADILLY CIRCUS (EXCAVATIONS).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Minister of Transport whether the various authorities responsible for the excavations which have been closed and reopened on different levels at Piccadilly Circus at intervals during the past five years have mapped out a joint time and progress schedule; and, if so, will be obtain and place a copy of the schedule in the Library for the inspection of hon. Members?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The arrangements have throughout been carefully co-ordinated and from time to time adjusted in discussion between the Commissioner of Police, the Westminster City Council, the Underground Railway Company and my Department. While I do not think that it would be convenient to place a large and complicated series of drawings in the Library, I shall be happy to show them to my hon. Friend.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does not the fact that those responsible for the work have kept open a builder's backyard in Piccadilly Circus for the last five years show a lack of efficiency on the part of his Department?
    Mr. PYBUS: When I last visited the site I was impressed by the sense of well-ordered organisation I found there.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Does the Minister of Transport think it desirable to keep open a builder's yard in a crowded centre of London like Piccadilly for five years?
    Mr. PYBUS: I can only view the matter from the point of view of an

    569
    amateur, but I would always defer to the opinion of an expert on this locality.
    Mr. BOSSOM: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that he should insist on the time table of progress being carried out on these works in the public interest?
    Mr. PYBUS: A time table of progress has been drawn up, but it is of necessity varied from time to time by the authorities which are carrying out this complicated work.

    ACCIDENTS (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to give figures of accident cases under Section 36, Sub-section (2), of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, where hospital treatment has been given to injured persons; and what amount of money has been paid by insurance companies to hospitals for such attention?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have considered the possibility of securing the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks, but regret that I do not feel that I could justify the time and labour which such an inquiry would involve.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the Minister of Transport aware that the Act has not given satisfaction in this particular? Some of my constituents want him to do something in regard to it.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures I gave him which were provided by the British Medical Association, showing that only 10 per cent. of the money expended by hospitals was recovered from the insurance companies; and will he take steps to see that insurance companies do justice to the hospitals?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have no information to show that insurance companies are evading the provisions of the Act.

    INQUIRIES.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the advisability of appointing an independent chairman in cases where the Ministry has instituted an inquiry to be held, so as to ensure impartial judgment in such cases?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am always ready to consider this course where circumstances appear to make it advisable, but I see no reason in ordinary cases to depart from the customary practice of appointing an officer of the Ministry or some other suitable person to conduct inquiries on my behalf and to report to me.

    OMNIBUSES (STABILITY TESTS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary if the police officers responsible for licensing omnibuses attend the tests undertaken in the yards of the companies to ensure that such vehicles are not top-heavy and that the braking power is adequate?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: All new types of omnibuses for use in the Metropolitan area undergo a tilting test, at which a responsible officer is present to ensure conformity with the prescribed standard of stability. The brakes of all omnibuses are subject to a severe test before licences are issued and their maintenance in thoroughly good order is one of the conditions of the licence. The brakes are tested under service conditions at frequent intervals by the police.
    Mr. GROVES: Do those conditions apply to all vehicles plying for hire, including tramcars?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down a question upon that point.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FOREIGN-BORNE IMPORTS.
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade with which countries we have treaties which would prevent His Majesty's Government imposing a general additional duty on all goods of whatever kind imported into this country in foreign ships; and what would be the earliest dates on which such preventive conditions could be terminated, respectively?
    Mr. COLVILLE: As it is a fundamental principle of our maritime policy to secure British shipping against flag discrimination abroad, a provision having the effect suggested by my hon. Friend occurs in practically all our treaties. The

    571
    period of notice necessary to terminate these treaties varies, but it is usually twelve months.
    Mr. MITCHESON: Could the hon. and gallant Member give us some specific information which will enable us to judge the position?
    Mr. COLVILLE: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I shall be glad to give him an answer.
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, of the 75 ships chartered by the Russians for their timber trade last year, only 20 were British vessels, although 75 per cent. of the Russian timber output was exported to this country; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to make any representations to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics with a view to the employment of a less disproportionate number of British ships?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I understand that the majority of ships chartered by the Russians last year for their timber trade were not British. From the information at my disposal I am unable to confirm that the proportion of Russian timber exported to this country is so high as 75 per cent. of the total exports, though it undoubtedly forms a large proportion. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. Friend may be assured that the matter will not be lost sight of in connection with the question of our trade relations with Russia.
    Mr. MITCHESON: Does the hon. Member doubt the figures I have given?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I only say that I have no official confirmation of them, but that undoubtedly the timber shipped from Russia to this country forms a large proportion of the exports from that country.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Irrespective of timber shipped from Russia to this country, will not the hon. Member do what he can to break down the barriers to business between this country and Russia?

    CUSTOMS NOMENCLATURE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to adopt the Customs nomenclature recommended by the conference that was
    572
    held under the auspices of the League of Nations?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The draft unified Customs nomenclature prepared by the Sub-Committee of Experts appointed by the Economic Committee of the League has not yet been received by His Majesty's Government. When received it will be very carefully considered.

    DANUBIAN COUNTRIES.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the increasing risk of losses being incurred both in trade and remittances with Danubian countries, he has anything yet to report of the measures he is taking to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I have been in further consultation with business interests in regard to the difficulties arising from exchange restrictions imposed not only by the Danubian but by other countries. The views expressed are now being carefully examined to see if there is any action that can be taken to ease the position.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to announce definitely that something is going to be done to improve the present position in this respect?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I cannot state a definite date, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are aware of the great difficulties of the present position and will do everything possible in the matter.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to enter into consultation with the Dominions on the subject of the position that has arisen in connection with the attitude taken up by the Government of the Irish Free State?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The present issues between this country and the Irish Free State arise out of the interpretation of the Treaty of 1921 and other agreements forming part of the settlement then reached between the two countries.
    Mr. MANDER: Is not this a matter which in some sense affects the whole of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and will he not at some stage consider the question of a joint consultation between all members?
    Mr. THOMAS: The difference at the moment is a difference between two parties to an agreement. One of them has repudiated it. I have nothing more to add.
    Mr. MAXTON: While the right hon. Gentleman makes it a matter between this country and the Irish Free State, have not all the other Dominions interfered in this matter by sending messages to the Irish Free State on the subject?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the fact that other Dominions have already taken a say in the matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: Occasions arise, and I remember some, in which my hon. Friend has felt that on a certain issue his views ought to be known.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it also the case that I have felt very much offended when my views have been ignored, as the Dominions may be?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure that it would be with extreme reluctance that any hon. Member of this House, and least of all myself, would willingly ignore anything that my hon. Friend says.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that his Department has been calling up disabled ex-service men with the object of withdrawing the necessary supply of surgical boots and appliances; and will he cause inquiries to be made so as to ensure the continued supply of such necessaries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The hon. Member has been misinformed. It is not the case that men are being called up with the object stated, or otherwise than in accordance with the normal practice of
    574
    medical examination. I may perhaps refer the hon. Member to the answer on this subject which I gave on the 16th March to the hon. Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire (Mr. G. Macdonald), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. CROOKE: Will the hon. Member give a further consideration to this matter if I furnish him with evidence?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I shall be glad to consider any evidence that the hon. Member may wish to bring forward.

    LAW OF ARBITRATION.
    Mr. HARTLANDasked the Attorney-General whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to give statutory effect to the recommendations in the report of the Committee on the Law of Arbitration, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Mackinnon, appointed by the late Lord Chancellor, Viscount Cave, which report was presented to Parliament in January, 1927?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. and learned Friend regrets that it is not possible to introduce legislation to deal with this matter in the present Session.

    BRITISH ARMY (UNIFORMS ACT, 1894).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the case at Aldershot of the unauthorised wearing of Army uniform; and whether, to avoid abuse of charity, he will instruct the Army authorities to take action on every such occasion which may be brought to their notice?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have seen Press reports of this case. Cases of infringement of the Uniforms Act, 1894, are dealt with by the police authorities, and any cases which are brought to the notice of the War Office will be reported to the appropriate civil authorities.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (LOANS).
    Mr. POTTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain and state the reasons why the League of Nations arranges that the terms of the Hungarian League of Nations loan shall be honoured, but does not take similar steps in respect of the Greek 7 per cent. refugee loan for the supervision of which the League of Nations was responsible?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): As explained in the recent report of the Financial Committee of the League, the decision of the Hungarian Government, when compelled to suspend the transfer of the greater part of Hungary's foreign obligations, to maintain in the first place the service of the League of Nations Loan of 1924, was taken by the Hungarian Government itself without consultation with the League of Nations or its Financial Committee. As regards the Greek 7 per cent. Refugee Loan of 1924, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel J. Sandeman Allen) on Monday last.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will my hon. Friend convey to the League of Nations that it has a moral responsibility here?
    Mr. EDEN: If my hon. Friend will read the answer he will discover that.

    LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state when the invitations to the Lausanne Conference on 16th June will be issued; who will issue them; and to which countries the invitations will be addressed?
    Mr. EDEN: As my right hon. Friend informed my hon. Friend, the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) on 17th February last, the question of invitations to attend the Conference at Lausanne is one for the joint consideration of the six inviting Powers responsible for the communiqué relating to the holding of the Conference which was published in the Press on 13th February last. His Majesty's Government are now in corre-
    576
    spondence with the five other Governments concerned, but I can as yet make no public statement.
    Captain ARTHUR HOPE: Is there any truth in the rumours that this Conference may be adjourned until the autumn?
    Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

    MAINTENANCE ORDERS (IMPRISONMENT).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary what was the cost of maintaining in prison 6,911 persons whose bastardy or maintenance orders were enforced by imprisonment or detention in 1930; and the number of such persons who have been prosecuted more than once for being in arrears?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The figure asked for in the first part of the question is approximately £11,000. There are no statistics giving the information asked for in the second part of the question.

    NARCOTIC DRUGS MANUFACTURE (CONVENTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Home Secretary whether British ratification of the 1931 Convention for the limitation of the manufacture of narcotic drugs has yet been decided upon; and, if not, when is a decision regarding ratification likely to be made?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to ratify this Convention and, to enable this to be done, the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1932, was passed with the object of bringing our law into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: As this has already passed the other House, how long will it be before there is ratification? Will it be before the summer?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I cannot give a precise date. We are in communication with the Dominions and Colonies on the subject.

    DEAF PERSONS (INQUIRY).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the President of the Board of Education

    577
    whether the inquiry into the conditions of the deaf, instituted by his predecessor in conjunction with the Minister of Health in the late Government, is complete; whether he has received the report of the inquiry; and, if so, when it will be published?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I have received a report from a late medical inspector of the Board who was appointed by my predecessor, in conjunction with the then Minister of Health, to ascertain the facts as to the conditions of the deaf in England and Wales. This report was not intended for publication, and is still under consideration by both Departments concerned. If my hon. Friend cares to communicate with me direct I shall be glad to give him any assistance I can.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will those communications result in certain parts of it, at any rate, being issued for publication?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I cannot answer that question, but I will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health upon it.

    PUBLIC HEALTH AND HOUSING (GRANTS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health the amounts of the financial grants from the Government to local authorities in England and Wales for health services and for housing services in 1910, 1920, and 1930, respectively; and what amounts were borne by the local authorities?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend will send the hon. Member a statement giving the desired information.

    HULL (INQUIRY).
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the Recorder of Blackburn's report on the actions of the town-planning committee of the corporation of Hull?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has received the report and is considering it, but, as he indicated in his answer to my Noble Friend on 7th April,
    578
    the investigation has no relation to town planning.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: When will this report be in the hands of Members?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will inquire from my right hon. Friend, and let my Noble Friend know.

    AUSTRIA (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received an intimation from His Majesty's Minister at Vienna of the alleged intention of the Austrian Government to declare a moratorium; and if he proposes to take any measures to protect the interests of the large number of British investors in Austrian loans?
    Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council the business for next week?
Mr. BALDWIN: Monday: Supply, Committee, Police and Prisons Votes.
Tuesday: Supply, Committee, Mines Department Vote.
Wednesday and Thursday: Debate on a Motion to approve an Order made under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and on a Motion to approve the revocation of Orders made under the Abnormal Import (Customs Duties) Act, 1931.
Friday: Supply, Committee, Ministry of Transport Vote.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Can my right hon. Friend give us any indication when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is likely to be taken?
Mr. BALDWIN: I would not like to be committed, but as at present arranged we hope to take it on Monday week.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of giving the usual two days' Debate to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?
Mr. BALDWIN: I am not sure that that epithet is chosen with accuracy, but I will look into it.
Mr. MAXTON: When will the House have the Second Reading of the Rent Restrictions Bill, or at least an opportunity of seeing the Bill in print? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that this Bill was promised in the King's Speech, but there has been no word of it, and the time is getting on. If we do not have it soon, it will be impossible to finish it this Session. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is now time that the House had an opportunity of discussing the Irish question having regard to happenings in Ireland, to the statement of the Dominions Secretary, and to the great interest of the Dominions generally in this question?
Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served at the present moment in having such a Debate. With regard to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will be good enough to put it down to the Minister of Health whose Department is concerned.
Mr. MAXTON: It is because I have received no satisfaction for several months from the Minister of Health that I am going to what is, presumably, a higher power in the Cabinet.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we attempt to put down the question to the Minister of Health it is not allowed, because questions on legislation must be addressed to the Leader of the House?
Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down to the Prime Minister, who, I hope, will be here next week.
Mr. MAXTON: We cannot have that. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order for the Leader of the House, when acting for the Prime Minister, to refuse the responsibility that he owes to the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that it is out of order.

BILLS REPORTED.

  BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LINDSEY AND LINCOLN JOINT SMALL- POX HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND WANDLE VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (DERBY AND STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Sunday Performances (Regulation) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Viscountess Astor, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Janner, Mr. Campbell Ker, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, Brigadier-General Makins, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Dr. Peters, Sir John Rutherford, Mr. Stourton, Mr. Turton, Mr. Wedderburn, and Mr. Young; and had appointed in substitution:

  581
  Colonel Baldwin-Webb, Mr. Doran, Lord Fermoy, Sir George Hume, Mr. Hutchison, Sir Joseph Lamb, Major Llewellin, Major Mills, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Ormiston, Major Owen, Mr. Perkins, Sir Gervais Rentoul, Mrs. Runge, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mrs. Ward, and Mr. Herbert Williams.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Sunday Performances (Regulation Bill): Sir Alfred Butt, Mr. Curry, Mr. Rhys Davies, Major Despencer-Robertson, Mr. Drewe, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Lees-Jones, Mr. McEntee, Mr. Macpherson, Lord Eustace Percy, Sir Basil Peto, Mr. Potter, Mr. R. J. Russell, Mr. Somerset, Mr. Stanley, Admiral Sueter, Captain Euan Wallace, Mr. Clyde Wilson, and Lord Winterton.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Margate and Yeovil) Bill, without Amendment.

  SKY-WRITING.
  That they give leave to the Lord Dickenson to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by the Commons on Sky-writing, his Lordship consenting.
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (POWERS OF INVESTMENT).
  That they propose that the Joint Committee on Gas Undertakings (Powers of Investment) do meet in Committee Room E, House of Lords, on Thursday the 5th of May next, at Eleven o'clock.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (POWERS OF INVESTMENT).
  So much of the Lords Message as relates to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee considered.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.
  CLASS VI.

  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,195,918, 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, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants-in-aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants-in-aid, Loans, and Expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock; land settlement, cultivation, improvement, drainage, etc.; regulation of agricultural wages; agricultural credits, co-operation, and marketing; fishery development; and sundry other services."—[NOTE.—£810,000 has been voted on account.]
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Glimour): It is usual for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to open this discussion with a general statement of the agricultural position, but I think the Committee will agree that we have had lately several opportunities of discussing the general policy of agriculture. Therefore, I may be forgiven if I confine my remarks more closely to the general administration of the office. British agriculture employs approximately 7 per cent. of the employed population of the country. This, it is true, is the lowest proportion of any country for which we have statistics, and on this account there is sometimes a disposition to underrate the importance and the value of the agricultural industry and of its importance to our people. When we think of the vast stretches of agricultural land, whether in Canada or Australia, we must remember, however, that, nevertheless, the number of people in Great Britain engaged in agriculture is greater than in any of the Dominions,
  588
  that it is substantially greater than in Canada and very much greater than in any of the others.
  It is true that the value of the products in agriculture in this country has in recent years been somewhat less than that of Canada, but on the other hand, it is greater than that of Australia and considerably greater than that of any of the other Dominions. Therefore, India apart, Great Britain is one of the greatest producers of food in the Empire, and it is clear that the industry for which my Ministry is responsible is of great importance to the country. The Committee may be interested to be reminded that on the basis of the 1925 census of production, livestock and livestock products account for 71 per cent. of the total production; farm crops 20 per cent.; and fruit and vegetables 9 per cent. I hope that the policy which we are pursuing may stimulate and increase farm crops and fruit and vegetables, particularly the latter.
  I need not enlarge upon the economic position of the industry, but it is right to remind the Committee that there has been a great fall in the prices of all products in 1930 and 1931. The agricultural index figures stood at 36 in April, 1930, just before the Estimates were last before the Committee. That figure of 36 was then the lowest figure since 1915. A year later, in April, 1931, the figure had fallen to 23, and the figure for last month was 13.
  The general situation in agriculture, and the steps which can be taken to improve it, are matters which, I think the Committee will agree, fall more for discussion when we consider the agricultural policy of the Government, but it is well in reviewing the administrative side of the problem to keep these main features before us. The Estimate before the Committee for both agriculture and fisheries is £2,005,918. I cannot, I think, properly present it to the Committee at the present time without bringing to their notice that we have had to enforce considerable and drastic economies arising out of the crisis of last Autumn. For the purpose of comparison, I think it is better to ignore for the moment the appropriations-in-aid and to consider only the gross total. This stands at £2,501,913. To give a complete picture

  589
  of the economies effected I must take the Committee back to April, 1931, when the provisional Estimates for 1932 were first prepared. At that time it was contemplated that the services with which the Department had been charged arising out of various legislative enactments would involve an expenditure of £3,132,525 in the financial year 1932. That estimate, however, took no account of expenditure under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, which subsequently became law. The expenditure under that Act would, I estimate, have been certainly not less than £1,000,000 if it had operated at all in 1932, and there would have been a progressive expenditure in subsequent years. The Committee will realise that by not operating that Act a very large economy has been achieved.
  This figure of £3,132,525 was the estimate considered by the May Committee when they considered national expenditure. They recommended a cut of £500,000. In the light of the Committee's recommendations the whole field was reviewed by the National Government in September, 1931, and the amount was reduced to £2,543,700, in other words, a cut of £588,825. That was in excess of the cut recommended by the May Committee, but still further economies were subsequently made, bringing the figure down to that now before the Committee, namely, £2,501,913, a reduction of £630,612 on the original provisional Estimate and a reduction of £468,920 on the 1931 figure, again leaving out of account the very considerable expenditure which would have been involved if the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act had been operated.
  I would remind the Committee that the Estimates of the Ministry include one particular item, amounting to more than £800,000, a very substantial figure, upon which economy is not possible. This item represents the contractual payments which have to be made to county councils under the final and binding settlement which was made by this House in 1926 in respect of small holdings created after the War. I think the Committee will agree that that large sum must be placed in a very special category. If I deduct that sum of £800,000 from the figures I have given it will be seen that the saving of £630,000 has been made
  590
  upon a provisional Estimate of £2,332,000, in other words, a reduction of over 27 per cent. I need not tell the Committee that cuts of this magnitude cannot be achieved or enforced without interfering very materially with a great many services of great value to many of the industries concerned, and to the wellbeing and the progress of the country as a whole. They are not cuts which in more prosperous times any Minister of Agriculture would desire to make. On the contrary, were we in the position to do so we should rather desire to extend many of those services.
  The provision for agricultural education has been reduced from £424,500 to £280,350, and that for agricultural research from £408,100 to £301,020. The grants for the improvement of live stock have been scaled down, and the provision for small holdings was reduced from £43,000 to £28,000. Drainage authorities were informed that State assistance could only be provided for works of an emergency nature, and the amount provided was reduced from £340,000 to £72,500. The expenditure on the improvement of marketing, which at the present juncture is of material importance to this country, has had, of course, to be reduced. That includes the development of the National Mark schemes, in which Members in all parts of the House are rightly and properly greatly interested. That expenditure was cut down from £85,000 to £61,300. The Fisheries Vote was cut from £101,310 to £71,062. I am quite aware that these cuts will raise criticism but I have endeavoured to spread the economies fairly and reasonably over the whole field of the Department's activity. In very few cases, indeed, have any services been completely closed down. Grants have been scaled down, but the structure of the machinery has, as far as possible, been left unimpaired, and one hopes that in happier times we may be able to develop and extend those activities.
  I should like to say at this point that these reductions involve drastic economies and a curtailment of the powers of many local authorities, and I am very grateful indeed for the helpful spirit which county councils drainage authorities, institutions and colleges and other bodies have cooperated with the Government in bringing about these very necessary reductions. I think the Committee will agree that on

  591
  these figures the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have contributed a reasonable, and, indeed, a good example of economy in our present difficulties. I have been pressed to modify in this direction or that some of these economies, but all I can say is that I am satisfied I may have to contemplate further retrenchment as far as it is possible in the light of experience. I do not say that in regard to some of these cuts, re-adjustments might not be possible either upwards or downwards, but I am quite certain that there is as much need to-day as there was last August for a very rigorous examination of every penny of public expenditure. I confess that I cannot contemplate any loosening of the strings.
  On an occasion like this, it is manifestly impossible to do more than select a few items for special comment in a Department whose activities extend to both sea and land, capital and labour, credits and charges, precept and practice, and cultivation and commerce, and range from bloodstock to beetles, mushrooms to milling, microbes to marketing, production to protection, tilling to trawling, and quotas to Kew Gardens. The House will realise the varied interests which are concerned. In the field of agricultural education and research, as in other branches of activity, the main event of the year has, unfortunately, been the financial crisis. As I have already indicated, the estimated expenditure on those two services has been reduced roughly by 20 per cent. This has involved a scaling down of grants in aid of county agricultural education from 66⅔ per cent. to 60 per cent., a reduction approximately of 7 per cent. on the research and advisory services. This has involved some reduction and recasting of the salaries of research and advisory workers. Those people are already too lowly paid for the valuable services which they have rendered to the country, but these cuts have in general been very loyally accepted by the personnel of the research stations. During the year the Agricultural Research Council has been established to co-ordinate and advise on agricultural research work, and I think I am right in saying that although we are urged to enforce further economy, this is a suitable time to take stock of the whole position of research, and I think it will be a valuable thing that we have now available a body consisting of the lead-
  592
  ing figures in the sciences underlying agriculture and of persons distinguished for their interest in and experience of practical agriculture who can review the whole position and give us their expert advice.
  The Ministry continue to wage war against diseases of animals and plants. During the past two or three years we have continued our investigations into one of the most baffling problems, namely, that of foot-and-mouth disease. I do not desire to claim that we have solved the main problem of this very baffling disease. All I would claim for it is that I think we have been able to make progress in certain directions which has enabled us, in a variety of ways, to control and deal adequately with outbreaks when they occur. The policy of slaughter, as I said in answer to a question to-day, is still the only safe and satisfactory way of dealing with these outbreaks. During the year 1931 there were 97 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. It may be interesting to compare those figures with those applying to outbreaks on the Continent. Last year Belgium had 612 outbreaks, Denmark 10,773, France 10,878, the Netherlands 11,958, and Germany no fewer than 26,416. This is incidentally one of the many advantages we derive from our insular position and is a set-off to the discomfort of a channel crossing.
  In the first quarter of this year there was only one outbreak, which took place in Durham, but I regret I am not able to say that we are free from this scourge at the present time. On 18th April an outbreak—the first for four months—occurred among a herd of pedigree stock on a farm at Cheriton, in Kent, and this was followed by a further outbreak on another farm a few miles away in the occupation of the same breeder. I hope we may be able to stop this outbreak. At the moment there is every hope that the outbreaks will be confined to a small radius, and I need not assure the Committee that we are exercising the utmost vigilance. It is unfortunate that these outbreaks have occurred at the time when the whole industry is looking forward to holding agricultural shows throughout the country. In this, as in other suitable cases where animals have not been directly exposed

  593
  to infection by this disease, we have tried inoculation with serum. Here, again, it would be unwise to express any opinion as to the effect of this inoculation treatment, but during 1931 there were 5,525 animals inoculated with serum in connection with 23 outbreaks, and cases of the disease followed in only two of the lots treated. But it is not possible to be certain as to the effect of this treatment. It is, however, I think, a desirable one which we ought to pursue.
  4.0 p.m.
  If I turn from that to plant diseases and pests, the most important event of the year was the risk which this country ran from the entry of the Colorado Beetle. It is a problem which the Ministry has considered from time to time, and it was brought to our notice that it had spread from Bordeaux northwards, and we had to decide what steps we were going to take. The Committee is very well aware of the steps which we have taken. I think that the Committee will agree that, although it raises great difficulties, and the Regulations interfere, as they are bound to do, with the industry of the people in France, it is a wise and an inevitable step, and the Committee will agree with me when I say that the Government intend to maintain it.
  The passing by Parliament of the Horticultural Products Act has imposed on the Ministry duties, of course, of a very novel kind. The Committee is aware that four Orders have been made under this Act which have imposed duties on a variety of fruits, vegetables and other horticultural products. The revenue collected under these Orders up to 31st March, 1932, amounted to £164,000, but Members will remember that one of the chief objects of this Measure was not so much revenue as to keep out of this country, at a critical time in the beginning of our own season, those products which, in fact, took the cream off the market. Those Orders came into force too late in the season in some cases to admit of comprehensive steps being taken for the extension of the acreage under crops, and it is somewhat early in the season for any reliable estimate to be attempted as to what actually has taken place, but I am encouraged by the reports which I have received which indicate that there is a considerable expansion both in the cultivation of fruit and salads. The
  594
  glasshouse industry has shown a very keen interest in salad growing, and it is probable that very many houses which normally stand empty during the winter will now be occupied growing lettuces and endives.
  Those Members who paid a visit to the Royal Horticultural Society's show the day before yesterday will agree, I think, that that exhibition at their Hall in Vincent Square reflects great credit upon our growers. One of the outstanding features was not only the excellence of the product itself, but what is, I think, very material, the method of packing and presentation of the product. Therefore, it is clearly essential that if our people are to reap full advantage from the encouragement which the Government are giving them, they must turn their attention more and more towards the improvement of marketing. The National Mark scheme was, of course, in force in 1931 for apples and pears, tomatoes and cucumbers, strawberries, cherries, canned fruits and vegetables, cider, eggs, poultry, home-killed beef, flour and malt products, and I hope that during 1932 these schemes may be extended to bottled fruits and vegetables, honey and fresh plums.
  Of the schemes already in existence that relating to canned fruits and vegetables shows perhaps the most remarkable development. The industry itself has increased more than 12-fold since 1928. The output of National Mark canned goods in 1931 showed an increase of at least 50 per cent. over the output of the year before. When we consider the enterprise and energy which are necessary to bring that about, I think we may feel that, apart from whatever this House may do, or what the officials of the Ministry may do, there are men and women in these industries who appreciate the importance and the desirability of their extension, and, if I may say so, it is only by the recognition of that fact and the wholehearted co-operation of these people that we may hope to see these industries expand.
  The outstanding development on the organisation side of the Ministry's marketing activities has been the submission by producers of a reorganisation scheme for hope, on which a public inquiry is about to be held, and the appointment by the Government of reorganisation

  595
  commissions to formulate schemes for the milk and bacon industries. Rapid and substantial progress in the direction of more efficient organisation is, of course, essential as a complement, and, indeed, in some cases, as a preliminary to any action the Government may take with regard to imports, and I hope that producers, retailers and wholesalers will actively co-operate with the Commissioners in their difficult tasks.
  I would like to say one word at this point about the administration of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act. I think that everyone of us is agreed that it is essential to try to secure adequate remuneration for the workers on the land. I have been told that by the economies which I have effected by reducing the staff of inspectors I have done grave injury to this problem. I do not think that that is so, and I would venture to assert that we have to-day a staff adequate for dealing with the complaints which may come in from any district, nay more, that they can not only investigate such complaints as are made, but that they can make surveys of the districts. Do not let it be supposed that the National Government are blind to the interests of any one section of the industry, but may I say to the Committee quite frankly that I believe the greatest assurance for adequate remuneration for services rendered by those who are skilled in this industry—one of the basic industries of our country—can only come if we can assure to the industry as a whole a reasonable hope of expansion and a solid return for the work which they do.
  I am, as the Committee knows, responsible not only for the great agricultural industry of the country, but for the fishery development round our coasts. The gross Estimate for the Fisheries Department for the current year is £71,062, which compares with £139,928 for the year 1931, and £160,746 for 1930. The decrease of £68,866 as compared with 1931 is mainly accounted for by the fact that capital charges to the amount of £56,500 in respect of His Majesty's Ship "Challenger" disappear from this year's Vote, this vessel having now been completed. Of the rest of the saving, amounting to £12,366, the greater part is necessarily
  596
  made at the expense of Fishery Research. Here, again, the greater saving is attributable to the fact that, owing to the need for economy, the "Challenger," which has been completed, is not to be sent to sea for the purpose for which she was originally designed. That purpose, of course, was the exploration and the charting of new fishing grounds. In the meantime she has been handed over to the Admiralty for use as one of the surveying ships, substituted for one of the older ships in the Surveying Department. This arrangement, besides saving the Ministry of Agriculture Vote an expenditure of some £25,000, also brings about a saving on the Admiralty Vote, since this ship, which is kept in commission by the Admiralty, can be so kept at very much less cost than the older ship which she has displaced. By comparison with the last Estimates, the removal of the cost of His Majesty's Ship "Challenger" from the Vote represents a saving of £65,000 out of the total saving of £68,866.
  The items in the section of the Ministry's Estimates devoted to fisheries relate primarily to the research work conducted by the Department itself, in conjunction with the various independent institutions which carry out marine research work with the assistance of grants from the Exchequer. The independent institutions and the Ministry work upon rather different lines. The former devote their attention to a general study of the sea and of life in the sea; the latter investigate scientifically problems which have a more or less direct bearing upon the economy of the fisheries. Steady progress continues to be made in our knowledge of some of the inmates of the sea— the herring, plaice, cod, hake and sprat, which are the fishes to which particular attention has recently been turned, and I think it may be said that it is now possible to forecast some three months in advance what are the prospects, for instance, of the great East Anglian herring fishery. For the third year a prophecy of this nature was published in the "Fishing News," and I am glad to say proved to be accurate. Whether that is a long enough test remains to be seen, but, at any rate, it is an advance upon right lines. The value of these prophecies is, I think, generally acknowledged by the industry. It is hoped soon

  597
  to make general ones as to the prospects, for instance, of the cod fishery in the North Sea, and a report on that subject has been prepared.
  There are, of course, a number of investigations, biological and others, carried out in collaboration with the corresponding departments of other nations in Europe through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and Great Britain, I think, has always played a fairly prominent part in that work. In order to meet the demands for national economy, we have been compelled to lay up the research vessel "George Bligh" for a considerable period, instead of keeping her in commission, as usual, throughout the year. Nevertheless, I think it is true to say that, by the work which is being conducted by the officers of the "George Bligh" and of the motor drifter "Onaway," which was acquired by the Ministry a little over a year ago, we hope to be able to preserve the continuity of the most important of our investigations in the sea. I might mention, in connection with shellfish investigation, the system of purifying mussels and oysters from bacterial pollution. These experiments have been continuing with successful results. I am happy to think that they have been placed upon a commercial footing, and I hope to see this work considerably developed. The subject of freshwater fish has also received considerable attention, and much information has been obtained on such problems as the pollution of rivers by the effluent from sugar beet factories and other factories of that kind, and as to the most feasible method of grappling with the purification of the rivers.
  The Committee will, I know, realise that I have only touched upon a section of the wide field which this Ministry covers, but I shall, of course, be glad to endeavour at a later stage to answer any inquiries that may be made. I think it is true to say that there are more than 100 Acts of Parliament which this Ministry has the responsibility of administering, and it is, therefore, no simple task that lies before either the Minister or the officials who work under him. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the officials of the Ministry, both at head-
  598
  quarters and in the country, for the manner in which they have carried out their ordinary duties, and particularly for the loyalty with which they have accepted what to many of them must have been a severe personal blow in the necessary economies which I have outlined to the Committee to-day.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have always thought that it is a rather extraordinary proceeding when one is obliged to express hearty appreciation and to extend congratulations to a Minister for an extremely lucid review of his Departmental work, and in the same sentence to move that his salary be reduced by £100. I am not at all sure that that side of our procedure might not well be changed. Nevertheless, I do commend the right hon. Gentleman for the very lucid exposition that he has just given to us of the work of his very comprehensive Department. The right hon. Gentleman correctly pointed to the three main general considerations affecting our agricultural industry, namely, the benefit of our working population who are employed on the land, the proportion of our output as reflected in livestock, farm crops, fruit and vegetables, and the tremendous fall in the price level during the past two or three years. These questions call for the very earnest consideration, not only of every Member of the House of Commons, but of economists and thinkers in all parts of the country.
  I hardly appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's references to economy in this of all industries, if ever we are to absorb our army of unemployed; nor did I follow clearly his suggestion that, as a result of not having applied the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, he had saved approximately £1,000,000. It rather appeared to me that the right hon. Gentleman was claiming credit for not having done anything in regard to that piece of legislation. His references to economies on education, research, and, perhaps, drainage, one can understand, but I should like to say to him—and I am sure that in saying it I am expressing the feelings of all Members of the House—that we shall await with great interest the report which is likely to be forthcoming with regard to cod, though I do not think that either the right hon. Gentleman or the Government need any research into the art of "cod," for they

  599
  appear to be past masters at it already. Nevertheless, we shall be very interested to see what the right hon. Gentleman's report has to say. In reviewing the work of the Department, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman, while, quite rightly, he held tightly to his brief, failed to indicate, notwithstanding the tragedy of agriculture at this moment—
  Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

  1. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1932.

  2. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Margate and Yeovil) Act, 1932.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,195,918, 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, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants-in-aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants-in-aid, loans, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of livestock; land settlement, cultivation, improvement, drainage, etc.; regulation of agricultural wages; agricultural credits, co-operation and marketing; fishery development; and sundry other Services."
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Prior to that interlude I was saying that, during that lucid review, one thing that struck me very forcibly was that, while claiming credit for a good many economies, here there and everywhere, there was no indication of
  600
  any coherent policy for this very disturbed and badly affected industry. It is true that the Horticultural and Agricultural Emergency Imports Duties Act was referred to and other bits and pieces. The Greengrocery and Rose Trees Orders may or may not produce results, but, at all events, £164,000 has been forthcoming, and to that extent it has helped the Revenue, whether it helps our horticulturists or not. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to go one step further and indicate in what part of Great Britain more fruit trees have been planted or are being planted and what sections of the agricultural community are making ready to take advantage of these Orders by expanding what is, after all, a most productive side of agriculture and horticulture. So much for the Greengrocery and Rose Trees Orders, which we do not think in themselves are going to be of any real value unless, and until, co-operation is either voluntarily undertaken or superimposed by the present or some future Minister of Agriculture.
  It is true that, following that Act, we have the Wheat Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was for a long time floundering between the millers, farmers and bakers and ultimately a Wheat Bill emerged, but we shall have to wait quite a long time before we see the results of that Measure. I should like to ask what their Lordships in another place are likely to do with that Bill. I know there was a date fixed for its passing, and in all probability it will be passed by that date, but, in view of all the anticipations and expectations and prophecies and all the machinery that the right hon. Gentleman has to set up—I understand nothing can be done publicly until the Bill is actually passed—does he still think, notwithstanding the delay because of the complex machinery in another place, he is still working well within the Schedule prescribed in the Bill? Perhaps he will tell us whether or not they were really serious when they were negotiating the Bill through the House or whether by some curious mischance they merely allowed the farmers to believe that the Wheat Bill will become an Act and they are not really concerned about it in view of what their Lordships are doing now. However, one thing has emerged from his state-

  601
  ment, namely, that, while a casual reference was made to organised marketing, the right hon. Gentleman rather seems to discourage than to encourage all elements in the industry co-operating by hinting to them that, while this Government has applied Protection to a considerable proportion of agricultural produce, and is making certain arrangements to do other things with regard to agricultural products, unless and until the farmers settle down definitely and with seriousness to apply the Agricultural Marketing Bill, the Government ought to hint to farmers that neither will they extend nor expand Protection nor any of those things calculated to provide fair prices.
  We regard the dropping of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act instead of being, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, an economy which ought to be admired and for which we ought to be grateful, as most wasteful extravagance. After all, wise expenditure not infrequently proves to be the best and soundest economy. As the Lord President said in a speech very early this morning, we are living in a new world and conditions are totally different from what they were yesterday. It seems to me that it is quite a right thing for the State to assist by experimentation and to proceed to develop the idea of smallholdings on a co-operative basis. I should like to ask a question or two with regard to the Land Utilisation Act, which has not been applied in any particular since the Government took office. Do we understand that the idea of a big commercial industrialised farm for demonstration purposes on the question of wheat production is completely cut out of the Government's programme? Are we not to expect that in some form the nation can be guided as to what its future ought to be with regard to its introduction in this country?
  Smallholdings have been near and dear to the hearts of the Lord President and to the Minister and to many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for a long time. Now the right hon. Gentleman claims credit for having cut down the expenditure on smallholdings, instead of expanding them in order to increase our agricultural population. I rather think the Government lays itself open not only to very definite condemna-
  602
  tion but to severe protests from all decent thinking politicians for their attitude towards allotments and the unemployed. In a short space of time the late Government at least made it possible for 64,000 unemployed persons to cultivate allotments during the time when they were disengaged and had nothing to occupy their time and, to a large extent, it not only preserved their muscular development but prevented them from doing things which would have been much less useful than producing food. With regard to smallholdings, I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer writing a foreword to a book dealing with agricultural questions, and he said:
  "We should encourage the increase of smallholdings on sound and careful lines."
  The Lord President said on one occasion:
  "We shall promote the provision of small and cottage holdings by affording facilities for occupation and ownership, and we will encourage the allotment movement."
  While those right hon. Gentlemen tell us that it is part and parcel of the Conservative policy, the Minister to-day claims credit for having reduced expenditure upon smallholdings. It may be true that economy has to be practised in various forms, but the placing of people on the land in all probability will be a sound investment and not a waste of money, and the alleged economy is really extravagance, since the person who would have been employed on the land will be receiving unemployment benefit. Wherever smallholdings have been set up, the population invariably doubles, and the number of people engaged in producing food in some form or other is doubled, too. The right hon. Gentleman said the number of people employed in agriculture was 7 per cent. of the total engaged population. That is a very small proportion. We employ 2 per cent. of our population upon the land, and it seems to me that, after 100 years of Liberal and Conservative administration, single and joint, it is a. very grave reflection upon their capacity to deal with agriculture that our rural population should have been reduced to such small proportions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Free Trade"] Whatever the hon. Member, who is so fond of interjecting but seldom makes a speech,

  603
  may say, the facts of the situation are as we find them at the moment.
  Agriculture is more depressed to-day than at any period during the last 70 or 80 years. There is nothing for the hon. Member to boast about with regard to that position. Wherever smallholdings have been set up, where any semblance of co-operation has been adopted, it has been proved that they can be made to pay. I do not want to see a man and his wife, his son and his daughter, his horse, his dog, and his cat all working from morning to night to eke out a miserable existence. I think, however, that with well-planned, well-designed smallholdings, worked on co-operative lines, there is still a future for agriculture in this country, and I suggest that while we can produce £8 worth of wheat from an acre of soil and £93 worth of cauliflower, or £59 worth of cabbages, there is ample room for contraction on one side and development on the other, although I recognise that such development would have to be done with the utmost caution.
  Now that the right hon. Gentleman says that nothing is being done under the Agriculture Land (Utilisation) Act, have the Ministry any co-ordinated plan for agriculture, after having looked over the whole field—the arable section, the stock-raising section, the vegetable section—and have they made up their minds as to how best to ultilise it? The objects and policy so far practised and promised are contrary to the ideas of the Lord President of the Council, who, I recall, referring to agriculture on one important occasion, said:
  "The agricultural industry wanted fixity. They did not want interference, and they did not want legislative chopping and changing. They wanted to know where they were and to get about their business."
  I entirely agree, but this chopping and changing that we are seeing, with an Import Duties Bill for this commodity, a quota scheme for that commodity, a Commission for some other commodity, and the hope that somebody may do something for still some other commodity, is a lack of that fixity desired by the right hon. Gentleman, and we fear that this encouragement which the Government are giving to agriculturists, horti-
  604
  culturists, fruit-growers, and the rest, that the thing they are likely to get all along the line is Protection, is a faulty method to pursue, will be costly to the nation, and will probably be disastrous to the industry that, I know, the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to assist.
  We have already an indication as to what fruit-growers and all the rest are likely to do. The right hon. Gentleman believes in his heart of hearts that the Agricultural Marketing Act holds out great hopes for the farmers, but after all this time during which the Act has been on the Statute Book, we have had two indications of the possibility of marketing schemes being produced. The hop-growers, after having tried to succeed by all manner of means, and having failed because of their own miserable colleagues letting them down, are now suggesting a marketing scheme for hops, and that is all to the good. The other scheme is that of the Scottish growers of raspberries, and the Noble Lady representing one of the Scottish Divisions gloated over the fact that Scotland was showing the way. I believe that that was the case at the time when that speech was made, but now the right hon. Gentleman tells us, in reply to a question, that the raspberry growers in Scotland, having got Protection in some form and feeling that Protection in some other form is a possibility, are now withdrawing or refusing to support the marketing scheme for raspberries.
  I suggest that if we take an example from what other countries have shown with regard to Protection being the only solution to all their problems, we shall see that it is not only not a good solution, but that it works out disastrously to the producers of food. I took this cutting from the "Nation," an American newspaper, of the 20th April, 1932;
  "Twenty-five per cent. of all privately-owned property in the State of Mississippi was under sale for taxes on 4th April; 39,699 farms, or 16.2 per cent. of the agricultural acreage of the State, went on the auction block that day, while 12 per cent. of the city property was forfeited for nonpayment of 1931 taxes."
  Here is a country where they have Protection par excellence, but notwithstanding that policy, agriculturists and the rest have been brought to their ruin; and we are apprehensive that if we persist in misleading the people of this country

  605
  into the belief that all that they require is Protection and that marketing may be ignored and neglected, then I think we are doing an ill turn to the producers of food.
  I noticed in one paper this morning some reference to a secret possibility with regard to imported beef. May I recall what was said by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) on that subject? Whatever one may think about his policy, one always appreciates that he knows something about the agricultural industry, and, referring to the question of beef in a Debate on the 15th February in this House, the Noble Lord said:
  "The degree to which organisation can help the beef and mutton producer is more marked even than it is in other branches. One has only to go to any cattle market in the country to see that if there are 10 beasts more than the dealers require that day, the prices are bad all round, while, if there are three beasts fewer than the requirement, there are good prices all round. A system of organisation, feeding our markets with the numbers required and not putting farmers to the unnecessary expense of driving beasts to market in excess of the demand, would at once put thousands of pounds into the pockets of the farmers of the country."
  We entirely agree with the Noble Lord. It is the slipshod method of meeting the demands of the market that places the farmer at a disadvantage on every occasion. The Noble Lord also made this very significant observation, which is equally true:
  "The first thing that the industrialist of the North does when he has the money is to buy British meat. He is the best customer that our livestock farmers have."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1932; cols. 1363–4, Vol. 261.]
  I can vouch for the accuracy of that statement. I know of few miners' wives who would go to the butcher's shop and ask for Argentine or any other frozen or chilled meat if they had sufficient money to purchase English beef or mutton. Therefore, if the agriculturists would see the wisdom of utilising the Agricultural Marketing Act, and the right hon. Gentleman would do all that he can to influence them and to threaten to superimpose it as an obligation upon the farmers instead of waiting for them to do what they have not done for 50 or 70 years, and what they will not do for another 20 years, then I think there
  606
  might be something in the policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to other phases of this industry.
  I may be told by the Government that after all they are setting up a Milk Commission and a Bacon Products Commission, but what is the right hon. Gentleman doing with regard to those two commissions? I do not want to suggest that he is packing the commissions, but having looked over their membership and at the language of the terms of reference, I think the commissions are vitiated at the very commencement and that production is primary, while organisation is secondary, with regard to both commissions. The Milk Commission is being set up for certain well-known purposes. The chairman of it may have been a good soldier and a good editor of a newspaper, and I understand that he was a National Liberal politician, though I should not imagine that he knows much about milk and milk products. Then they have a professional, who will know his job. The third member is a Conservative ex-Member of Parliament, whose mind, of course, is fully made up in advance; and then they have a chartered accountant, and another milk expert, who is a civil, mechanical, and electrical engineer and a director of five companies, ranging from cement to light castings in the electrical trade.
  It seems to me that such a commission as that is so packed with people whose fiscal predilections are previously settled that dairy products will not be considered as they ought to be considered, while milk in its liquid form may be the only thing dealt with. We must not forget that while we produce £59,000,000 or £60,000,000 worth of milk in this country, we only import £6,000,000 of liquid milk in diverse forms, but while we produce about £6,000,000 of milk products, we import £60,000,000 of milk products. It seems to me that if you had a really impartial commission, who would pay much more attention to the use of milk, looking after surplus milk and avoiding the tremendous falls in prices which knock the dairy farmer off very rapidly, you would serve the farmer, you would not injure the consumer, and business generally would be better as a result.

  607
  Whom has the right hon. Gentleman chosen to deal with pig products? There is another impartial commission, of which the chairman is a Conservative politician who has been a well-known and industrious Member of this House for a number of years—Colonel Lane Fox—but he is a Conservative politician and a well-known Protectionist. Then there are a chartered accountant, a director of a steamship company, and a large land-owner who owns 8,000 acres of land and is a director of nine companies, ranging from paper-making to managing the Great Western Railway. The fifth member has been a Conservative candidate for Parliament twice and is also a director of a company. Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect us to 'believe that these commissions are impartial, that their mind is not made up before they commence, that the primary thing they will consider will be the regulation of imports and not the marketing of home-grown, home produced articles? I recall that the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot, when talking about the Import Duties Advisory Committee, said to the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in quite blunt, honest, frank language:
  "I hope that the chairman will not be a judge who will look at the thing from a judicial point of view … but will be a statesman of wide experience who believes in the principles on which the Government's policy is based. I would like to see someone like the right hon. Member for "West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) … a believer in the policy, and one who means to carry it out thoroughly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1932; col. 1362, Vol. 261.]
  Whether Sir George May and his two colleagues are the disciples of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), I do not know, but I am convinced that the constitution of these two commissions is vitiated, first of all, by their terms of reference and, secondly, by their membership, because production will be primary in their consideration, while marketing and organisation will be secondary. I lament the fact that the right hon. Gentleman should allow himself to be pressed into adopting this method and this policy, which will react ultimately to the disadvantage of agriculture.
  608
  5.0 p.m.
  A word or two with regard to tied cottages. I know that there is an Act enabling the Government to erect 40,000 houses and to rent them to poor people, but has the right hon. Gentleman during the past six or seven months, when thinking about gooseberries and tomatoes, had a moment to spare to consider the question of tied cottages as they affect the agricultural labourer in this country? We know from past experience that it is the easiest thing in the world to get rid of an agricultural labourer, without providing any alternative accommodation, by the simple process of applying to the county agricultural committee for a certificate. If these county agricultural committees are dominated by farmers, certificates are granted wholesale, and the poor agricultural labourer has to leave. No alternative accommodation is provided for him, and he becomes a victim of the unscrupulous farmer. I do not refer to the decent fanner, and, of course, there are as many decent farmers as there are decent politicians, even Members of the Labour party. It is the other fellow who has to be guarded against. We see no final or lasting solution to the horror of tied houses until more houses are erected in rural districts. I would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing to see that a move is made by those responsible for building houses. Rural councils are invariably dominated by farmers who want to preserve their power over the labourer. They do not want to untie the tied cottage, and, if left to their own volition, little or nothing will be done in the provision of alternative accommodation for agricultural workers.
  The Minister gave the Committee today figures of the cost of foot-and-mouth disease for last year. I think he said that £92,000 had been spent on combating that disease. I remember that in 1923 the cost for that same disease exceeded £3,000,000, and it is fair to assume that, as a result of research and of the efforts of his very efficient Departmental officials, the cost of the tragic disease has been considerably reduced over a period of seven or eight years. I regret that one single penny-piece should have been withdrawn from research which deals with the colossal waste of cattle and stock due to this disease, which affects not only

  609
  cattle but root crops and the rest. This economy on agricultural education is the most wasteful form of extravagance. What we are saving in education and research we shall spend ten times over, probably, by loss of stock and in other ways. The stand-still Order is tragic, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to claim credit for having cut down these education services for the training of our people in agricultural ideas.
  The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to the Agricultural Research Council. I recall that Dr. Addison worked out a scheme for an Agricultural Research Council. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what that council are doing at the moment? Our information is that, although the scheme was worked out before the National Government took office, it has come to a standstill and that practically nothing is being done. What about the reconstruction of the veterinary college which has been clamoured for for years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows? Dr. Addison had arranged for it before he left office. Are we to understand that that has fallen also with the economies of the right hon. Gentleman? If so, I lament the fact, and I think that agriculturists who have demanded this improvement for so many years will regret the action of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know what has happened to the recommendations of the committee on grants provided for by the Noble Lord who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. The committee was an important one, and its recommendations were equally important.
  Referring to drainage, the right hon. Gentleman patted himself on the back because he had reduced expenditure from £340,000 to £70,000. If he could have been at a place called Bentley, some two and a-half miles from Doncaster, four or five months ago, and seen a thousand men, women and children who were driven out of their homes and who had to live for week in elementary schools, because their houses were not habitable, he would not pat himself on the back for having reduced expenditure on drainage. Agriculturists in this House express pleasure and delight when any Minister of Agriculture cuts down money which has been set aside for drainage. There must be hundreds of thousands of
  610
  acres of good land in this country that are derelict for want of drainage. Although the cost is very large, it is cheaper to employ people to drain the land than it is to pay them unemployment benefit for doing nothing. If the right hon. Gentleman's policy of protection or quantitative imports is going to succeed, then the more valuable agricultural land is the better it is for production.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the administration of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924. I do not know where he secured his information, but he told us that those who suggested that the Department were not looking after the labourers were not speaking in accordance with the facts. He replied to a question put by myself only yesterday. I asked him how many individual visits have been made to farms for the first three months of 1931 and for the first three months of 1932. The Patronage Secretary heard the statement, and will, I am sure, be interested in the figures, which were as follow: The number of individual visits in 1931 was 1,057, and 549 of the farms visited were evading the law; that is, over 50 per cent. of the farms visited were evading the law, and they do it with impunity. I will show that it is a jolly good business to evade the law. In 1932 the number of individual visits had fallen to 655, only 60 per cent. of the individual visits paid in 1931.
  The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is not neglecting the administration of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, but clearly the dismissal of six inspectors, who probably cost the nation £1,600 per annum, is. now costing agricultural labourers, who are not being paid according to law, several thousands of pounds per annum in wages which they ought to be receiving. Whether agriculture is being made to pay or not as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's lack of administration and unsound economy, the agricultural labourer is being called upon to make farming pay by sacrificing wages which he is entitled to receive. In Suffolk and in one or two other counties, the wage fixed is 28s. per week. Even this miserable wage is not being paid by a large number of farmers. Of the number of persons visited over a period of time by inspectors from the

  611
  Ministry, no less than 23 per cent. were evading the law. There are about half-a-million agricultural labourers, so that about 100,000 agricultural workers are not being paid according to the law. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may smile, but the facts of the situation came from the Ministry of Agriculture. They are not figures that I have produced in a dream or imagined, or anticipated like the Minister has to anticipate so many things.
  Viscount LYMINGTON: Surely the hon. Member realises that the inspectors only pay visits when there are complaints.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The Noble Viscount will recollect that that is our complaint. The number of visits made between 1925 and 1930 were 11,741, and 23 per cent. of the people visited were evading the law. We suggest that it ought not to be left for myself, or the Noble Lord, or the Agricultural Workers' Union, or some other union, to have to write to the Ministry of Agriculture in order to intimate that some farm is evading the law. The inspectors ought to be sufficient to make the drives that they were making in 1930 and 1931 so that farmers would appreciate that they must comply with the law like everybody else. We suggest that 100,000 agricultural labourers are not being paid that which they are entitled to receive.
  I think I can show that it is a paying proposition not to pay. In almost every case when the inspector is notified of the evasion and he makes a visit, he takes the case to court. What is the invariable result? The farmer has to pay the arrears but the fine is infinitesimal. Let me give the Noble Lord an example, in which three persons were involved in three cases from Ashford, Derbyshire. The arrears of wages were £155. The case went to court, and the labourers were paid the £155, but the fines inflicted upon those employers totalled £3 10s. Who would not take a chance to save £155 for not more than a nominal fine of £3 10s.? The benches, dominated by farmers, keep the fines down to a point where it pays a farmer to evade the law. Apart altogether from appealing to farmers who evade the law to pay their arrears when proceedings are instituted, the right hon. Gentleman ought to insist that his inspectors press that fines com-
  612
  mensurate with the crime shall be inflicted upon such farmers. A poor miner in my Division a few days ago was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for having stolen a bit of coal worth 6d. to warm his starving children. Compared with that, the fines inflicted upon the farmers will not bear looking at. The right, hon. Gentleman has a duty to those workpeople, and he ought to reinstate the dismissed inspectors and see that the law is carried out, particularly since the nation is called upon to pay higher prices for such things as milk, bacon, gooseberries and rose trees. We are inclined, broadly, to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's general policy, and we feel that it is not going to have the desired result.
  I wish to mention a matter which, though it may seem very small, in its way is highly important. I refer to the question of bee-keeping. The bee-keeping industry has been attacked for many years by a deadly disease known as the acarine disease. Fortunately, a station master has been successful in producing a remedy for it, and he has been complimented by bee-keepers in all parts of the world. Bee-keepers in Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and elsewhere have sent him most glowing testimonials, and have conferred upon him the highest honour in a European, and indeed, almost in an international sense for the marvellous discovery of a cure for acarine disease. He gave the cure to the world at large without receiving a single penny piece for all his trouble. When I quote from a letter of an expert, hon. Members will realise the value of the discovery. Captain Dixon Johnson says:
  "He (Mr. Frow) has immensely benefited not only bee-keepers but the community as a whole. For by finding a remedy for the acarine scourge he has made it possible to produce more honey and import less. The home production of honey which the Frow remedy has given to the bee-keeping industry will progressively increase, with a proportionate decrease in the importation. Money which would otherwise have left the country will now remain at home. Mr. Frow has put new heart into one of the oldest industries, and indirectly has saved the country thousands of pounds which would otherwise have gone abroad to purchase honey for our home consumption."
  That is but one letter out of 50 letters from which I could quote. I know that money is scarce, because the right hon. Gentleman has economised on education

  613
  and research, but since Mr. Frow has spent many years of his life and a good deal of his hard-earned wages in experimenting, and ultimately producing a cure for this deadly disease, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his Department, after all other European nations have conferred the highest award upon Mr. Frow, ought to do something even bigger? They ought to provide him with an opportunity of continuing his experiments, so that he may further serve the interests of bee-keepers in this country. If the Department would do that, I am convinced that he would earn his salary and prove a useful adjunct to the work of the agricultural colleges and materially assist one of the oldest industries in the country.
  The stand-still policy of the Government in a broad sense in regard to educational research is in our opinion the worst form of economy. There has been neglect of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act through political folly and spite, and their attitude towards co-operation and organised marketing will ultimately react disastrously upon the agricultural community. We recognise that agriculture is a many-sided industry and that it must be attacked from many angles. We are convinced that nothing short of a concerted plan will ultimately restore agriculture to prosperity in this country.
  Mr. J. P. THOMAS: Since I became a Member of the House, I have been filled with admiration for the versatility of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He deals with so many and such complex subjects, but I am sure, in spite of that, he is human enough not to have forgotten the agony which he must have suffered in making his own maiden speech. I hope he will forgive me if, in making my maiden speech, I do not attempt to reply in detail to all the arguments he has put before the Committee. He has, however, mentioned the Horticultural Products Act, which, when the Measure was before the House, was described by hon. Members of the Opposition as the puny child of a great National Government. And by referring to it as an Act of "bits and pieces," the hon. Member for Don Valley can hardly be said to have praised it this afternoon.
  The Minister of Agriculture, when he brought the Measure before the House,
  614
  claimed that the Act was a small but a very practical step towards encouraging our people to produce for themselves the ordinary foods of everyday life. I can assure the Minister that in my constituency, which forms the western boundary of that great fruit-growing and market-gardening area, the Vale of Evesham, the Act is exerting already—and will continue to exert more as the months go by—a very steadying influence on our trade, and it is giving new encouragement to those men, about whom I am glad to hear the hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition are so much concerned—the hard-working but highly competent band of smallholders who see in this Act a chance at last of making their livelihood once more on the land. If the hon. Member for Don Valley can spare the time to come for a week-end in my constituency, I think I can show him sufficient proof that because of the benefits which they expect to materialise under the Act, fresh acres are to-day being put down as market gardens. He would find there the answer to the question which he asked last autumn, when he enquired how the Horticultural Products Act was going to benefit the agricultural worker. I should be able to show him that we are doing what his party never did; we are finding new work for the unemployed. In every 100 acres of market gardens there will be employed, not one man as on grassland, not four men as on arable land, but as many as 16 workers, and that fact, surely, goes to show that to encourage market gardening is the quickest and surest way of bringing back our unemployed to the land. All the steps which my right hon. Friend has taken towards helping this industry have been steps in the right direction and we very fully appreciate them.
  But there is a natural desire to know, when the horticultural duties are due to lapse, how many of them the present Government will be prepared to continue. For with a certainty that the duties will continue, market gardeners will do much during the next few months to ensure that we grow less and less dependent on foreign produce and more capable of supplying the demands of our people for fruit and for vegetables. I hope that we may look to the Minister for an early statement, because the knowledge that those duties will be a permanent policy

  615
  is bound to bring immense relief to all who earn their living in this trade. The control of luxury imports which that Act provides has been part of the policy which we in the agricultural areas of the West Midlands have been preaching ever since the autumn of 1930. I have read very carefully the Debates upon the Measure, but I have failed to find in any of them a tribute to the originator of the scheme. I feel that it is not yet too late to pay our debt of gratitude to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the late Chief Whip of the Conservative party who in November, 1930, on one of those rare occasions when he broke covert and gave tongue in this House, laid this very admirable scheme before it. The greatest reward that the present First Lord of the Admiralty, the right hon. and gallant Member for Evesham (Sir B. Eyres Monsell), can receive is the assurance which, I think, the Lord President of the Council, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) and myself can give him, that there is at least one corner of this country where Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire meet in the shadow of the Malvern Hills where there is new hope and confidence for the future of the market gardening industry, which is going very far towards wiping out the dark patches of the last few years.
  I wish I could speak with the same optimism about another great branch of agriculture in which I am specially interested, for I think I can claim, with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), that we represent one of the biggest stock-raising counties of this island. We are prepared to admit that until three years ago stock-raising farmers were not in nearly so parlous a state as farmers engaged in other branches of the industry. But during the last three years, with the fall of wholesale prices, the position has been growing more and more desperate, and it is small wonder that we who have to watch that constant stream of agricultural workers, dismissed their jobs on livestock farms, migrating to the towns and to the Poor Law institutions, can only feel disheartened when the livestock industry still awaits the help which has been so
  616
  generously given by the present Government to the other branches of agriculture. We do not grudge the fact that protection has been given to the great basic manufacturing industries, for, like the hon. Member for Don Valley, we can look sufficiently far ahead to realise that, once those manufacturing industries are put upon their feet again and good wages go into the pockets of the workers, no man will benefit more quickly than will the livestock farmer. We do not grudge the help given to the growers of wheat, though some of us cannot help wondering at times why it is that there is so much talk in this House about wheat which, after all, is only 4.3 per cent. of the total agricultural produce of this country, while the fact that our land and climate are very nearly ideal for grassland is hardly ever mentioned. Those of us who know the live stock farmer have, I think, been feeling during the last few years that for too long the wrong leading lady has been holding the centre of the agricultural stage, and that the burst of eloquence with which she was hailed in the Quota Bill by the chorus—both male and female—in this House had the result of banishing her rightful successor to the wings. When that particular star has been removed elsewhere, perhaps I may produce her rival and bring her forward from the wings into the centre of the stage.
  5.30 p.m.
  Already we have two reorganisation committees set up by the Minister, and after the most imposing array of their talents produced by the hon. Member for Don Valley, I, for one, can say that it has given me the utmost confidence that the livestock farmer will be helped in time to come. I know that under the rules of this Debate it is impossible for me to make suggestions which call for new legislation, but I feel that there is nothing contrary to the rules of this Committee if I ask right hon. Members and hon. Members to look back—I hope regretfully—to what I can only call a "might-have-been." How satisfactory it would have been if, while we waited for the recommendations of the committees, we had had some temporary control of foreign imports of pig products, limiting them perhaps to the average import figures, say, of the years 1927 to 1929, when nobody complained that the price of bacon was too high.

  617
  What an expansion there might have been in the home industry. It might have prevented the unfortunate and very shortsighted decision of slaughtering our breeding sows, because the livestock farmer has no confidence in the future. If only we had won the battle to bring meat under a 10 per cent. tariff! Although I admit that this would be too small to be of any real benefit to the livestock industry, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it would have brought a revenue of nearly £8,000,000 a year to the Exchequer, and there would have been no need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say last week that there was no new source of revenue to which he could turn to enable him to remit the extra penny on beer.
  But we must abandon the "might-have-been" and face the facts of the present situation. I wonder, with the greatest respect, if we are justified in coming to the conclusion that the livestock industry would have been more prosperous had it not been that tradition dies hard, and that the very conservatism of our Liberal friends is having a retarding influence on the more liberal policy of the Conservatives. If Liberal Members of the Government have any fear that the livestock farmers would look upon Government assistance as a substitute for efficiency, I would ask them to turn to the breed societies of Great Britain. These societies have had little or no help from Governments in years past, and they deserve to-day a special word of commendation for having, purely by their own voluntary efforts, and by their intelligent foresight, built up those wonderful breeds of cattle, pigs and sheep which have not only raised the standard of stock in this country but have gone far to populate the great stock-raising countries of our Empire. I can assure the Liberal Members that that is the spirit which will be found in all branches of the livestock industry.
  I hope that in my maiden speech I have not been over-critical, for, apart from the livestock question, our farmers have every reason to be grateful for the help that has been given to them by the present Government. All those who are fair-minded must realise that the present Minister of Agriculture with great courage and infinite tact has done more
  618
  for British agriculture in the last six months than any of his predecessors have done in six years. Of all his successes, surely his greatest is this, that he has at last instilled into our farmers the will to organise. The machinery was there before, but it was unemployed. It is my right hon. Friend who has set the works in motion, and that has gone a very long way to help agriculture in these difficult times to climb back to its rightful place, which is the first and the most important of the industries of this country.
  Viscount LYMINGTON: I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) on his maiden speech. I hope that he will not stay too long or too often in the shade of his Malvern Hills, but that he will come to this House and make many more speeches, for he has shown that he already possesses the native shrewdness and native wit of his namesake and master. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) made a statement or a deduction which should not go unchallenged. He said that out of the inspections made by the inspectors of the Ministry into the administration of the payment of agricultural wages under the Minimum Wage Acts, 23 per cent. on the average of those inspections had shown that there were less wages being paid than should legally have been paid. I have always, as far as lay in my power, fought the battle of the agricultural labourer as sincerely and as wholeheartedly as the hon. Member, and where a penalty is deserved no one would like to see it more drastically employed. To deduce from the fact that out of that small number of inspections 23 per cent. of the cases proved to be underpaid, and that therefore 100,000, or one-fifth of the whole agricultural labouring population, is being underpaid, is a very grave statement and casts a stigma upon the industry.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I said that on the basis of the figures obtained after test inspections over a period, 23 per cent. were found to be evading the law, and I said that if we had 500,000 agricultural workers it is possible on that basis for 100,000 workers not to be receiving the wages to which they are entitled. That may or may not be the

  619
  case, and I am not going to argue that 100,000 are not being paid the proper wage.
  Viscount LYM1NGT0N: If that was the hon. Member's meaning, it has left an impression which ought to be corrected, for the sake of the farmers in this country. If one reads an account of cases of young ladies at a seaside resort wearing indecorous clothing, and that 25 per cent. were held to be indecorously clad, one would not therefore say that one-fifth of the women of the country are indecorously clad.
  Turning to the subject of the Vote, it is notable that for once the Minister has been able to stand at the Despatch Box and give an account of his year's work with a better heart and a realisation of having done more in the last few months for agriculture than has been done for a number of years. As he indicated, what he has not done has not been his fault. It is because of the limitations imposed upon him by various members of his own Cabinet. Whether they were rightly or wrongly imposed, one cannot argue here. The hon. Member for Don Valley said that the Commissions that have been set up to deal with agriculture are going to take the point of view of Protection and not an impartial view, and that the marketing system would not be brought out. Surely, we all know that it is impossible for any farmer to try to set up, in times of falling prices, his own marketing scheme until he has some chance of security in front of him. It is almost impossible to get the 350,000 farmers in this country to agree. We are told that because they cannot agree they are totally unfit to have any protection, while at the same time we find 800 mineowners are unable to agree and 46 nations at the League of Nations are unable to agree. Because 350,000 farmers, separated in all parts of the country, cannot agree, we are told that they are hopeless to be helped until they can agree among themselves.
  The Minister has been forced to economise. For myself, although I might possibly feel a little grudging in regard to some economies, it is a bad thing when one is pinched oneself to have to ask that other people should be pinched also. I do not think we ought to grudge
  620
  the economies, difficult as they have been, but two or three things stand out as a result. The first is that the administrative expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture cannot be very much cut down, and they represent one-fifth of the whole expenditure. That is a very high overhead charge, but anyone who knows the work that they are doing at the Ministry knows that it is not an undue charge. It remains to be seen how we can deal with the money at our disposal with the greatest profit. It is very difficult to see how we can get results from research work by spreading it over a very wide area or on small things. At a time like this the results will not be applied, because for the next six or eight months, or possibly for the next two or three years, the agricultural position will not rapidly get better. Therefore, we ought to try to canalise the money that we spend, in order to produce two or three valuable results, rather than spread it over a large number of small things from which we shall not see much effect.
  The first is machinery. The manufacturers in this country are backward in regard to agricultural machinery. Foreign machinery is not made for the English land. It is made to benefit the great virgin lands. The manufacturer here is not going to start extensively to spend money on research in regard to agricultural machinery until he finds that he is going to have some certainty of a future market. Therefore, if results are to take place it can only be through the Ministry's action in research itself. Anyone who considers the question of agricultural cultivation, harvesting and the drying of crops must realise that it will be of great advantage to agriculture generally and to livestock breeding if we develop research which will produce economic results in a short time, which will make us all the more fit to extend our protection and to meet any criticisms which hon. Members may level against us for not having our house in order.
  The other side of research upon which money should be spent to the greatest possible extent is research into the wasteful diseases of animals. Few people realise that epizootic abortion among cattle produces far greater loss than any other disease. To a certain extent that disease has been combated, but the results are not really percolating to a suffi-

  621
  cient extent to get right through the country. At the same time it is very desirable that we should endeavour to stop the disease known as Johnes disease, which is rapidly and alarmingly increasing of late among dairy herds. The dairying industry, which is only a part, with its by-products, of the meat industry is the largest single industry in the country and Johnes disease is rapidly increasing dairy wastage. Very little is known about it. It is a disease which we must tackle. I am almost certain that the wastage from this disease is considerably more than the wastage from foot-and-mouth disease last year.
  The serious point about this disease is that it is not notifiable. It does not require fresh legislation to make it notifiable, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will consider doing so. Animals come into the market with this highly wasting disease in its early stages upon them, and farmers cannot judge whether the animals are affected, but they come into contact with other animals and go into other hands and so spread the disease. I have had letters from veterinary inspectors of the Government asking me if I could do anything to help them in this matter, because they have to notify far less serious diseases when, at the same time, they have to stand and watch animals with this disease upon them being sold in the markets, and are unable to condemn them. If we could get these two things in the way of research—research which would really bring some lasting economic benefit to the agricultural industry on the machinery side and research which would prevent the wasting of our flocks by disease, we should get real results and do something in the waiting period so that when agriculture is developed we shall be able to start immediately and go full speed ahead.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) on his excellent maiden speech. My experience has been the same as that of the hon. Member. I have just come from a gathering where the question of sugar-beet has been discussed. I sat next to one of the officials, and after speeches had been made throwing bouquets at the Government, he said that he felt in quite a different atmosphere altogether, and
  622
  did not know quite what to imagine. I told him that it was much too early to suffer from a swelled head because he had not yet heard the National Farmers' Union on the subject. It may be rather ungracious on my part to have any grievance at all, but I do sympathise in some respects with the National Farmers' Union. I congratulate the Government on the policy which they have put before the country. It is the right policy, but I want them also to realise that the principal branch of agriculture, the livestock industry, has had no help at all yet. It has been going through really bad times. The price of milk is lower than it has ever been, and the price of meat is also very low, and while other branches of the industry have had the advantage if some protection, nothing at all has been done for this important and vital branch, the livestock industry. Perhaps I ought not to say that because something has been done in the case of some milk products which have received a small protection. Sweetened condensed milk has the advantage of a 10 per cent. tariff, but sweetened skimmed milk is left without any protection at all, and we are importing about £2,000,000 worth into this country as compared with £500,000 worth of condensed milk, which gets help.
  I want to ask one or two questions rather than make a speech, because this Debate is intended to deal with questions of administration and not with policy. I do not see anything in the Estimates for expenses for the representation of the agricultural industry at the Ottawa Conference. I have already drawn the attention of the Government to the vital importance of agriculture being fully represented at Ottawa. The Dominions want the agricultural market in this country. They will be anxious to make bargains, and unless our agricultural industry is strongly and well represented, great damage might be done at the Conference to our producers at home. I suggest that the Agricultural Council of England will be able to suggest suitable names. It is a body which ought to be more recognised and more used by the Government than it is at present. They do not represent one section of the industry, but all sections—landowners, farmers and labourers and rural industries.

  623
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has inaugurated the milk reorganisation scheme. It must be a long process, and no help can be expected before October next when the yearly prices for milk will have to be settled. In the meantime is it not possible by some arrangement to prevent the disaster which happened last year occurring again? On that occasion the milk producers were beaten down, and the price instead of being 1s. 4d. per gallon was 1s. They could not produce milk at that price, and they did not; and there was a shortage of milk. The result was that the foreigner imported more liquid milk in December and January than ever before. I understand that many of the retailers who endeavoured to knock down the producers of milk were hoist with their own petard, because they had to pay the foreigner more than they would have paid to the British producer. I hope such a disaster will not occur again, but until the whole milk industry is organised in all its branches there will be no real dealing with the matter. I hope we shall be able to have a scheme in operation before next September to give the milk producers in this country some protection for the next winter.
  It is equally important—and I am glad that the Government are doing it—to have some re-organisation in the meat industry. If they can be properly organised and are able to put their case for a tariff before the Advisory Committee, then I hope that they will not forget one of their most important by-products, the hides of the animals which are slaughtered. There is a tremendous waste every year through the ravages of the warble fly, and I hope that by research work and advice, if necessary by compulsory order, stock farmers will be encouraged to put an end to this pest, which takes many hundreds of pounds out of farmers' pockets and out of the industry of tanning. There is an item in these estimates of £233,000 for a survey of Great Britain.
  The CHAIRMAN: We are not dealing with that on this Vote.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: I thought it was part of the Estimates, I was going to ask if any money had been saved.
  The CHAIRMAN: It does not come upon this Vote at all. It is a separate Vote.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: It has been suggested by one county council that economy should be effected by doing away with the county agricultural committees. I do not know whether the Minister has heard of this suggestion or not, but I hope that he will not consider it for a moment. I believe it comes from an important agricultural county in the North of England. We owe a great deal in the matter of education on agricultural subjects to these county committees, and although they may have been somewhat extravagant in some cases, they should on no account be scrapped.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  6.0 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture gave us a very interesting story in his speech this afternoon, particularly in regard to the economies which have been effected. I desire to refer to the matter of His Majesty's Ship "Challenger." Hon. Members interested in agriculture have suggested various methods of research, and have said that the value of such research is immeasureably superior to the amount of money expended. Exactly the same case was made out when this matter was before the committee which investigated the fishing industry. We had before that committee the representatives of the British Trawlers Federation who pointed out that there were certain fishing grounds off the coast of Greenland where remarkable captures of turbot and other fish of that type were made. The difficulty which they experienced was that owing to the fact that those particular coasts were not charted properly, vessels might go to a certain place and make a wonderful haul of fish, but afterwards would have the greatest difficulty in going again to the same place because of the lack of charts of that area. The evidence laid before the committee was considered by them and taken very seriously and the committee had no doubt whatever from that evidence that there was an extraordinary prospect of development of the fishing industry provided that the facilities asked for by the trawl owners were granted.

  625
  We reported in favour of granting those facilities. The Government agreed and the ship was built, but now it appears that, instead of putting that ship into commission to do the work for which it was intended, it is to be handed over to the Admiralty and Heaven knows to what use it is going to be applied. The result will be that the available supplies of the higher qualities of fish will not be anything approaching what they might have been, and the possibilities are that the trawl-owners of other nations who are looking after this part of the coast of Greenland, will profit out of the loss sustained by our trawlers. That kind of thing has its repercussions. It was suggested before the Committee that if this part of the coast of Greenland was charted it would mean that more boats would have to be built. The shipbuilding industry, as we know, is in a very bad way and it seems to me that something might have been done along those lines which would have been of assistance to them. The economy which is being practised by the Minister in this respect is, I suggest, a false economy. Instead of assisting the fishing industry it is endangering it. Instead of assisting the shipbuilding industry it is leaving that industry to "stew in its own juice," if I might put it that way, with a tremendous proportion of its workers unemployed. That is done in the interests of economy but it is economy plus inefficiency.
  Another point of interest to me in connection with agricultural wages is the reduction of the number of inspectors by six. I have had a considerable number of letters from working men in the agricultural districts on this matter of the failure of farmers to pay the proper rate of wages. The figures given by the Minister in reply to a question on this point are astonishing. With all the good will in the world for the farmers, with all the desire possible to avoid casting any reflection upon them, with a full knowledge of the difficulties which they are facing, yet one finds it astonishing that in 1,000 odd visits by inspectors over 500 cases were discovered in which the proper legal wages as decided by the wages committee, were not being paid by farmers. The worst side of the question to me is this. Everybody knows that of all sections in this country the people who have to work the hardest and
  626
  who get the least are those who work on the land. That being so it is an extraordinarily wicked thing that these men should be virtually defrauded of even the miserable wages which they are supposed to receive for their labour.
  It seems inexcusable on the part of the Minister to reduce this inspectorate. When these six extra inspectors were appointed, it was known that a considerable amount of evasion was taking place and these additional inspectors were put on to the work in order that that evasion might be checked. I believe that if these inspectors were continued and if some check were put on this evasion, the possibility is that the farmers would find that that kind of thing did not pay and that would be all to the good. It would have the result of establishing a higher code of honour among the farmers and indicating to them that when they did wrong, Nemesis would overtake them. But the action of the Minister in reducing the number of inspectors detailed for this work is likely to give an impression to some farmers that the Government are not very much concerned about the business and that they are not taking the active steps which are essential to put an end to this nefarious practice. That seemed to me to be the weakest point in the speech of the Minister. I do not know whether it is possible or not to persuade him to reconsider his decision in this matter. I presume that these cases will go on and, possibly, if the right hon. Gentleman finds that they continue to be as bad as they have been in the first quarter of 1931, he may be persuaded to reconsider the matter with a view to putting some effective check upon this sort of thing. My request cannot be considered unreasonable. If somebody was "pinching" something from the Minister's own salary, I am sure he would not object to inspectors being put on to the job of checking that kind of thing. How much more anxious should he be to check it when it affects a class of people such as agricultural workers? When we consider the work which they do and the wretched wages which they get, surely the last thing in the world on which we ought to economise is any protection of their interests.

  627
  I am delighted to learn that there are two sections of the agricultural industry in connection with which marketing boards are to be set up. I understand that milk and meat are to be covered in that way. I take a great deal of interest in that question. I have spent all my life organising workmen and I know something about organisation, and I feel sure that as the various sections of agriculture are organised, they will themselves soon find remedies for their difficulties, apart altogether from tariffs and the other points mentioned in this Debate. The first duty of agriculture is to itself; and its first duty to itself is to organise in such an effective way as to be able to market its produce so as to command a proper price. In all the discussions on this subject the point which crops up most frequently is the disparity between the amount received by the producer and the price of the produce sold in the towns—the tremendous margin which exists between the two. The condition of things which exists to-day in agriculture in this respect is simple anarchy. There is no other name for it. The people who act as intermediaries play off one party against the other and beat down the price to the producer. The producer is bested every time by the acuter brains who are making profits on the difference between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays.
  It does not matter much what tariffs you put on while such a state of affairs exists. We had the case of hops, in regard to which a protective duty of something like £5 per cwt. was imposed. But owing to the fact that organisation among the producers had broken down, a section of them would not come into the council which was set up in the industry, and they undersold those who were anxious to effect some sort of control of the production and sale of hope. They were actually selling hops at less than the £5 per cwt. which was put on to assist them. It brought the whole thing down to absolute farce. You cannot carry on business in that way. It is the very essence of self protection that those concerned in a particular industry should have some form of organisation. The marketing boards give farmers a
  628
  greater opportunity for organisation than any section of individuals in any civilised society have ever had. I would like to see that kind of thing extended to the workpeople of this country. They would soon teach the farmers how to organise effectively and so to control production that the producers and not the wholesalers would be the masters of the situation.
  I hope the marketing boards will be multiplied. I think there is wonderful scope in this country for their development, and I believe that the farmers are intelligent enough to work them effectively. I have met many farmers; I have met the executive of the Farmers' Union, and I know that there are men of extraordinary intelligence and ability among them. I believe if they set about this task with determination and with the advantage of marketing boards, they will be able to put themselves into a much stronger position than they have ever been in before. They will be able to put their own house in order and to secure such payment for their produce as will ensure them a life of comfort and decency and some degree of certainty. I hope the points which I have indicated will not be lost sight of by the Minister. I know that he is a busy man and that nowadays when everybody is crying out for protection he is kept particularly busy. It is no wonder that at times he wears a worried look. But in the midst of all these other complications I hope he will not overlook the home side of the business and the organisation side of the business. I hope he will bear in mind the desire which I have expressed that the wages of agricultural workers should receive a full measure of protection and not a skimpy measure of protection; and that he will look upon them with some degree of sympathy, however poor and lowly they may be.
  Captain HUNTER: I would like to ask for that tolerance which this House in its courtesy is in the habit of extending to those who address it for the first time. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) made his speech from the angle of the Herefordshire livestock industry. I want to make my remarks from the point of view of the arable area of north Lincolnshire which is, as I hope to show, a little different from the majority of the arable area in

  629
  England. I want to refer first to the agricultural policy as a whole. We welcome the quota Act for wheat as the keystone of almost the whole of that policy. That Act provides a price of 45s. a quarter to the grower of wheat. The price is such that hon. Members opposite appear to have a good deal of difficulty in deciding how the profits which will arise out of it are to be apportioned. I can assure them from experience that to sell wheat at 45s. a quarter, or even a little more, will not do a vast deal more than meet working expenses.
  Then we have the Import Duties Act which has helped agriculture, including the arable side, to a small extent; and after the proceedings which took place in the House last night, as a result of which the claims of agriculture for further protection are to come before an independent committee, I hope that that Act will shortly benefit the industry as a whole. On the subject of other branches of the industry there are to be several commissions, one or two of which have already been appointed. I have no doubt that the work they will do will be of the utmost benefit. In short, I believe that the policy which the Government have in mind and have embarked upon is a well-considered and long-range policy, which is the only policy by -which to tackle agricultural difficulties.
  I represent a large area of North Lincolnshire which up to the present has benefited to a smaller extent than any area in England from the measures which have been brought into force by the Government. Although wheat is undoubtedly the key crop of England's agriculture as a whole, barley is the key crop in Lincolnshire, and all that they have gained in this area from the import duties is a benefit of 10s. an acre. The farmers are undoubtedly grateful for that, tout it will not help to keep farms in operation. I do not think that the absolutely desperate plight of farms and farmers in this area is adequately realised. The farms as a rule run on the large side; they require adequate capital and labour, and the second is impossible without the first. Almost every week I hear of farm after farm going into the hands of the landlord or going out of cultivation altogether. Every week I hear of farmer after farmer filing his petition. They are not farmers
  630
  who have failed because they had not ability or means, but they are men who started with adequate means and adequate knowledge, and who had, above all, the gift of hard work. If these men are unable to carry on, what must be the case of those whose advantages and abilities may be second to them? There is a man whom I know as one of the best farmers in his area, who a short time ago had adequate means to farm his holding and ordinarily employed 15 men. He tells me now that he is obliged to reduce the number to about one-half.
  That is going on all over the district, and I know not who is worse off, the farmer or the worker, because there is no dole for either of them. They must live by their industry. I know that every possible means are being pressed on and that the policy of the Government will in time overcome the difficulties with which the industry is faced, but the danger is that while the doctor is preparing his treatment, the patient will die. If this land goes out of cultivation for years, a large amount of expenditure will be required to restore it, even if it is ever restored. Now there has happened a thing which I deeply regret; the Government have been unable to reduce the tax on beer. That tax is having the effect of destroying, in the area of which I speak, the market for malting barley. On top of everything that is a very heavy blow to the industry, a blow which it will have the utmost difficulty in withstanding. May I venture to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to add his powerful representations to those which are moving in other directions in the hope that this difficulty may be avoided?
  6.30 p.m.
  Another point on which I want to touch is the question of sugar-beet, which is another section of the agricultural industry which largely affects my district. We know for a year ahead what is to happen. Contracts are now made, and I believe that they are, on the whole, as satisfactory as anyone could hope for. In fact, I believe I am not going too far in saying that, if anything, the factories have erred a little on the generous side in the hope that their position will be a little better than it is. Over this portion of the industry there is hanging a cloud of suspicion because we do not know what is going

  631
  to happen. We understand that a commission of inquiry will sit with the object of recommending a policy with regard to sugar-beet. I hope that the commission will not be long in arriving at its conclusions so that those interested may before long know the worst or the best— I hope it is the best—with regard to this portion of the agricultural industry. Up to the present time beet has represented a profitable crop among a number of unprofitable crops. The result is that you find, even now, beet being grown to a certain extent on land which is not good enough for its proper cultivation. The result is, obviously, that the production is smaller per acre, and the price, in order to be economic, has to be high. Therefore, I have every hope that as the other departments in agriculture become more prosperous, it will not be necessary for the farmer to strain the beet section of it in the way that he has done in places for a number of years. May I hope, in conclusion, that the inquiries into such things as pigs and pig products and milk will proceed with as much speed as possible; but in the meantime I ask the Government not to neglect to put into force any measures which may, even in a small way, help to bridge over this terrible time during which farmers and their workers are hanging on by their eyebrows and hoping that the promised help will materialise. Above all, let us hope that nothing further may occur which will act as a setback to farming; let us hope there may be no more heavy blows for the industry such as it received last week.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: It is my very great pleasure to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Brigg (Captain Hunter) upon his first speech in this House, and to say how much I enjoyed it. It showed great practical knowledge of the industry in the county which he represents, and we shall await further contributions from him with great pleasure, because of his mastery of his subject, and his restraint in dealing with an industry which is suffering so greatly. It is also a pleasure for me to congratulate a fellow-countryman of mine, representing a county just on the border of Wales—the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas)—on one of the
  632
  most eloquent maiden speeches we have had this Session. He showed distinct evidence of culture and talent as a speaker, and I feel humbled in making any remarks concerning the excellence of that speech. Another thing to which I wish to refer is the welcome reappearance of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. C. Duncan), who, after a long illness, has returned to take part in the work here. I think his speech showed that he has recovered his full vigour of body and mind.
  The Minister gave us a most interesting speech this afternoon. With his usual good taste and moderation he presented a careful and detailed account of the work of his Department since he assumed the responsibility for it. In the early stages of his speech he did not appear to be quite at ease, and spoke as if he were not quite satisfied with the measures of economy which he had been able to effect. He began by saying that if he had been able to disturb some arrangement which was rigid and could not be interfered with he would have been able to save more than the 27 per cent. of the total expenditure of his Department. I do not think the Minister ought to have shown any pride in reporting to the House that the useful activities of his Department were to be curtailed, and I do not think he was the happiest man in the Committee at the time, because I noticed that when he referred to the cuts in agricultural education, land drainage and the Fisheries Vote, one or two hon. Members cried "Hear, hear" very audibly, and the Minister did not appear to be at all encouraged by that approbation.
  The Minister proceeded to show that he had tried to spread out the economies, that he had not wholly cut out a single service. He went over the Votes one by one to show that after his economies a substantial volume of service could still be rendered in every one of the main branches of his Department: but he gave vent to a most unfarmer-like expression in saying "I have spread these economies very fairly over the whole field." Indeed, he has done no such thing. On the contrary, he has robbed every corner of the field, and after taking all the crops he has gone gleaning and picking up any few grains that he could find, even taking up the small potatoes that were left after the main

  633
  crop had been gathered. The field is now very much poorer and the Minister cannot be content, not as content as he tried to appear—unsuccessfully tried, I think. But I noticed that in that portion of his speech he did not speak as a Minister of Agriculture but as a Member of the National Government, which is an entirely different thing. He was speaking as a Member of the Government rather than as the owner of an estate or a good husbandman. In taking pride in his economies he was really belittling the importance of his Department, with the great services which we expect from it during the lifetime of this Government.
  He referred with pardonable pride and with almost lyrical eloquence to the variety of the duties which he has to perform, speaking of cultivation and commerce, mushrooms and microbes—indeed, I cannot remember all the alliteratives he used; and the Committee were delighted in the knowledge that we have in the Minister one who is conversant with all these aspects of his Departmental work. The Minister did speak with real enthuiasm in that part of his speech in contrast with his demeanour when he dealt with economies. He told us about the research into diseases of animals and plants, and gave us an encouraging account of the very efficient service here for the notification and treatment of a disease like foot-and-mouth disease in contrast with that of other countries. The total cost of the services dealing with foot-and-mouth disease in this country, including the expenses of inspectors, cannot have been less than £100,000 in the last year; but when we look across and see the ravages caused by this disease in Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands we must realise that there is an advantage in our being an island, an advantage that is augmented by our strict supervision over imports and a readiness to act as soon as any disease is notified. Then the Minister went on to talk of diseases of plants. I am not an expert on plants, but I do know that we have there a very profitable field for inquiry and work. When he referred to what had been done in connection with the Colorado beetle and other insects and pests he made me feel almost creepy, and we are thankful that he is not dismayed by having to tackle those formidable and objectionable creatures.
  634
  On another point I was disconcerted by the Minister's remarks. He claimed that the new import duties have conferred a great benefit on agriculture. I do not think that up to the present those duties have done anything for agriculture; so far from helping it, they may worsen its position, if they are considered in conjunction with the economies to which he gave such prominence. When we remember that we are cutting down the expenditure on research, on agricultural education and on drainage, what is the use of talking about this bit of contribution to the revenue, this £164,000? Is the Minister a kind of errand boy or office boy in the service of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very pleased to collect those few miserable pounds to put into the till? What does it profit a nation to gain a few miserable pounds if it loses its learning and its knowledge? It cannot be an advantage to this country to gain these few pounds, shillings and pence at such a sacrifice. The Minister may, if he likes, raise £164,000 a week, but that contribution to the Revenue does not tell the whole story. We cannot make a money contribution to the Exchequer and stop foreign products coming in at the same time. The higher the contribution to the Revenue from that source the greater the confession that the measures taken by the Government have failed in their main object. This claim by the Minister needs further examination, and I advise hon. Members representing constituencies where there is flooding, where the rivers overflow and where land is below the water level, to make a calculation and ask themselves whether any temporary advantage gained from these tariffs, any prospect of a slight alleviation of the Income Tax, is not more than offset by the loss in the value of land through the curtailment of drainage services.
  The Minister then referred to the exhibition at Vincent Square, and a very fine exhibition it is. I managed to find time to go there for half-an-hour this week, and I enjoyed it very much. I realised then that there was something more in farming than heavy and tedious labour, that there was beauty of colour and of design. That exhibition showed that the horticulturist is not only a worker on the land but an artist in colour and in form. It is a very great privilege to be

  635
  shown free, or at a very small charge, those wonderful exhibits. It is the "Royal academy of nature" which one sees in such exhibitions. I derived another lesson from that. I saw that they had an attractive way of presenting their products which one would like to see followed in this country. I have been to some of the market towns in the Division represented by my hon. Friend opposite, and I have noticed that, while the fruit in the orchards looks very well indeed, its cultivation being wonderfully perfect, the presentation of the goods in the market is not nearly so attractive. I do not know what the Minister proposes to do in the way of encouraging new methods of marketing, but I notice that the Vote for this purpose has been cut down by one-half. Instead of doing this, I think the Minister ought rather to take the responsibility of encouraging the farmers to visit these exhibitions, where they might see better methods of marketing, and, if he carried out that policy, I am sure the farmers would appreciate the advantages which they would gain.
  Next the Minister referred to the Fishery Department, a department which interests me personally. I happen to represent a shellfish gathering area where both mussels and cockles are collected, and these products form a good addition to the small incomes of the fishermen. I am glad that the Minister is interesting himself in this subject, and I hope he will go further and give local authorities the power to establish shellfish washing plants, in order that the shellfish may be free from even the suspicion of disease, because that would be sure to increase their consumption. We want an assurance that shellfish are being sold in a clean state fit for human consumption. The Minister of Agriculture made reference to the report on herring fishing. I think everything is right in the herring industry, but the cod-fishing industry is awaiting a report.
  The hon. Member for Hereford made an eloquent maiden speech, but one or two of his remarks I was not able to follow. He referred to some wonderful lady on the stage who was the centre of attraction at one time—the star lady, but she only occupied that position for a short time, after which she was sent into the wings and another star was brought
  636
  in to take her place. It is just the same with the policy of the Government. Wheat may be the star attraction to-day, and meat may be the favourite to-morrow. These star artists are dismissed ignominiously to the wings after they have played their part, but we have to pay the full price for them. It is the same with the Government's policy of Protection. One by one they come and one by one they go, but we have to pay very heavily for the popularity of these turns. An hon. Member opposite complained that in regard to proposed tariffs on meat 10 per cent. was not enough, and I feel sure that the hon. Member is waiting to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with this point by imposing a duty of at least 3d. per 1b. on all meat. Another hon. Member behind me recommends a tariff of 10 per cent. on meat and argues that that would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a penny per pint off beer. Let it be known in the future that the Tory party are willing to place 3d. per lb. on meat in order to take 1d. off beer. That is good Tory policy.
  On this Vote, I want to give the Minister a little encouragement, and I wish to inform him that we are not going to vote against this Estimate. We have proposed a reduction of £100, which of course is a mere bagatelle to him. I am sure a reduction of this kind will not disturb the Minister, and I hope he will get every possible assistance in his policy from the agriculturists of this country. I wish we could develop agricultural science on more practical lines. We hear a good deal about superphosphates and the value of artificial manure. For the greater part of my life I have worked below ground, and consequently I am able to appreciate more the beautiful work done by agriculturists on the surface. We have the most beautiful country in the world, and its attractiveness has been enhanced by a generation of agriculturists. Our practical farmers have a good knowledge of the foundation of the agricultural industry, and we are fortunate in one thing, and it is that we have a. good geological setting for the agricultural industry. In this respect, there is no better country in the world. The backbone of our country is the solid limestone of the Pennine Chain, which is the most valuable chemical element in

  637
  agriculture. We have in other parts of the country the same very necessary element. In former days it was the custom to use lime very largely for agricultural purposes. I do not wish to deprecate the use of new chemicals and artificial manures, but I want to know if the Minister could not do something to encourage the use of lime by the farmer. Now, by the making of new roads and by the development of our transport services it is possible to carry goods for long distances at very cheap rates. Lime can be carried and delivered to the farmer at a much cheaper rate than was the case before the development of our transport services.
  I want to know from the Minister whether by some better organisation he can make arrangements to extend the use of lime by farmers. A more extensive use of lime by farmers in this country would give more employment in the quarries and more employment to the coal miners, because a large quantity of coal is consumed in the kilns, and for these reasons alone I think the right hon. Gentleman might see what can be done to encourage the use of lime by our farmers. There is no doubt about the usefulness and value of lime to the farmers. We have the most perfect vitamin laboratory in the world, a very good soil, and a perfect humidity and temperature, and a greater possibility of production than any other country. The development of our agriculture is a great national problem. The Minister of Agriculture should not let the Chancellor of the Exchequer bully him, and he ought to insist upon having more money for research, for education, for drainage, and more efficient farming. If we can secure an efficient agricultural system, then we shall not quarrel over external matters. We shall not need protection by tariffs. Real protection can be achieved by sound internal organisation, by building up and maintaining a strong virile organisation for marketing as well as production, rather than relying on artificial and flimsy shelters which do not prevent the blasts of competition from cutting through. We press the Minister to attend to the real problems of agriculture and will promise him our support to that end.
  Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: We have listened on this side of the House, as we always do, to the speech of the hon.
  638
  Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) with great interest, and we are glad to note that among the Opposition there is is a great awakening in the interest which they now take in the industry of agriculture. It is now realised by all parties that the farmer, the fisherman, and the miner really produced the wealth on which the prosperity of this country depends. I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, and I congratulate him upon the economies which he has been able to effect in his Department. I can imagine nothing more difficult than a Minister taking office and finding that his first duty is to institute a series of cuts and to make large economies in the administration of his office. I think the Minister has carried out that arduous task with great tact and a minimum of hardship to all those concerned.
  I listened with interest to his general survey, and I was surprised to hear him dispel the fallacy that fishermen are untruthful, and that he looked to the pages of the "Fishing News" for accurate prophecy and truth. With regard to the Estimates, I note that the right hon. Gentleman has to deal with ail the expenses in connection with Kew Gardens. This tends to make the Estimates out of proportion, because such matters have nothing to do with agriculculture as the Vote for police and patrols at Kew Gardens. I noticed, too, that the Vote for the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome has been increased by 20 per cent. I want to know what special service is being performed by the Institute of Agriculture at Borne? When I was in Rome recently I visited that institution, and I was not very much impressed with the work that was being done there on our behalf. It is true that a large building has been erected on expensive lines, and that statistics are being prepared there on a large scale, but I do not think that those statistics have so far been of very much value to the English agriculturist and; fanner. I would rather see a reduction in the grant to the Agricultural Institute at Rome and more money devoted to improving and encouraging a better system of marketing.
  7.0 p.m.
  Another question I want to refer to is the Development Commission. We

  639
  have never had a Debate on that question, and we might well inquire how far that Department is of use to us or how far it is really a fifth wheel to the coach. I feel that everything that is being done there could be done equally effectively by the Ministry of Agriculture. We have heard from hon. Members opposite criticisms of the farmers, and it was suggested that farmers are out to cut down the wages of agricultural workers. While it is true that there may be certain cases in which farmers have not played the game and done the right thing, on the other hand hundreds of cases could be quoted where farmers have made great efforts to keep men in employment when times are very difficult. It has also been said that the workers would be able to teach the farmers how to manage their own business. The experiences of cooperative societies have not, however, given any helpful lessons to farmers.
  Criticism has often been made of the wheat policy of the Government and, in that connection, it is fair to quote a few figures in regard to the tenants of county council smallholdings. The county council, with which I happen to be associated, has an estate of 19,000 acres on which we have 1,700 tenants and four associations, and I am glad to say that in the main our smallholdings programme has been remarkably successful. On studying the cropping of these smallholders, I find that in 1930, of the land cultivated by those smallholders 41 per cent. was devoted to the growing of wheat, barley and oats, 14.37 per cent. was devoted to cultivating beet, and only 8.4 per cent. to grass and seeds. These figures indicate that, so far as the area in which I live is concerned, the Government was wise, not only from the point of view of the large farmer, but of the smallholder in encouraging the growth of cereals.
  Reference has been made to the Import Duties. I believe that they will do a great deal to encourage the market gardener and smallholder. I hope, however, that in our zeal for assisting and helping in this direction we shall keep the industry as free as possible from any form of bureaucratic control. We have already made good progress, and I feel that we shall make further advance in
  640
  the future. I would congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the vision he has shown in this new form of policy. It will require genius to carry that policy to full fruition, but I believe that, when the mists which hang over agriculture in this and other countries have cleared away, as indeed they will do, agriculture will then once again be re-established on a sure and sound foundation.
  Mr. DREWE: I wish to intervene for a few moments on behalf of the agricultural constituencies in the West of England. I regret that in the discussion, on these Estimates it is not possible to discuss the general future policy of agriculture, but I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the extremely difficult position of our farmers in all parts of the country. Farmers realise and appreciate that we have a Minister of Agriculture who is not only a practical farmer but has very great sympathy with the industry as a whole, but they cannot understand why he cannot urge the Government to rather quicker action in helping to restore better conditions. If his colleagues in the Cabinet cannot immediately announce their definite and final policy, can he not issue some interim statement or make some announcement which will bring some encouragement to farmers, who are absolutely at their wits' end at the present moment?
  A good deal has been said in the Debate this afternoon about the question of research. While all of us on this side of the Committee agree that economy in all Government Departments to-day is of the greatest necessity, is he quite sure that he is getting full value for the money which he is spending on research at the present time? I am personally well aware of the great value of the research work which his Department has carried out for many years past. The various publications, orange books, leaflets and reports of all sorts, are undoubtedly of the greatest value to the agricultural industry, but I am not satisfied that that information and those publications are being used by the farmers in the way they ought to be if we are to get full benefit from the research already made. Farmers to-day are in the frame of mind to try any new methods which they think will benefit the industry, but many farmers in different parts of the country are not aware of this research or that this re-

  641
  search is available at the Ministry of Agriculture. Not a few farmers find it difficult to get into the frame of mind of writing to Whitehall, even if they know that the information exists there.
  Would my right hon. Friend consider a new method of distribution with regard to the research already made? Would he consider getting into touch with local newsagents in our market towns and asking them if they would sell the publications of the Ministry of Agriculture? Would he give them sufficiently attractive terms to encourage them to push sales or, as an alternative suggestion, would he, through his county agricultural committees or in any other way, set up stalls in our principal markets throughout the country so that all these publications could be displayed prominently in our market places and offered for sale? If we could get all the information which exists readily before the farmers, it would be of immense value to our agricultural industry. Would he consider, too, the question of a poster propaganda campaign, either in our market towns or actually in our markets? If he could, by means of posters or by any other methods, clearly demonstrate to the fanner the difference in pounds, shillings and pence to his own pocket through using a properly balanced ration for dairy cattle or for stock or as a result of using the right type of manure for his particular farm, then the Minister of Agriculture would be doing a very useful thing to help farmers at the present time.
  We hear a good deal of criticism, when the bacon industry is discussed, to the effect that farmers are to blame because they do not breed the right type of pig. Why should not my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with some poster campaign, put before the farmer the type of pig he wants them to breed so that they can see what they ought to aim at? If the Minister says that these questions of distributing literature or other propaganda would cost him too much money, I would suggest that it would be better, even at the expense of curtailing research still further, if necessary, to spend that money and to make available to the farmers the research in his Department which is not known to agriculturists all over the country.
  Is the Minister satisfied that he as getting full value from the livestock im-
  642
  provement schemes, a matter of very great importance to agriculture? In the horse-breeding industry the schemes are thoroughly efficient. After all, a stallion is a very mobile animal, and in the course of the season can travel a very large area, but, when you are dealing with bull societies, the same thing does not apply. The right hon. Gentleman gives grants to bull societies, but there may be one in one district and then there may not be another bull society for a very long way. It is obviously impossible for farmers to get their cows and heifers long distances over a road and very often, too, these bull societies only cover an extremely limited area. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider some alternative scheme in this respect, and, instead of giving grants to approved societies, consider authorising his county livestock officer to purchase a certain number of good-class bulls suitable for the particular district and hire them out to individual farmers with adequate safeguards that they must make them available for the use of other farmers, subject to proper maintenance and insurance charges? Alternatively, would he be prepared to start some scheme on hire-purchase lines so as to make more bulls available to farmers? My object an raising this matter dealing with livestock is simply that, if we are to improve our cattle still further, as everybody desires, it can only be done, in my opinion, by getting more good-class bulls available in all our districts. Until that can be done, we can never get a satisfactory solution of the problem of finally eliminating the scrub bull. I make these points with the idea of pressing forward some helpful suggestions to assist our industry at the present time, and I hope that my right hon. Friend may see his way to give these matters his consideration.
  Mr. CHRISTIE: I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) at the beginning of this Debate. He was giving details of the bankruptcies of farmers in the United States and gave a very high figure of failures owing to non-payment of taxes. It struck me that that was one of the results of a system of taxation of land values from which this country has so far been saved. I thought that was a very interesting illus-

  643
  tration of what would have been the result in this country if the late Government had been able to carry through their policy of land taxation. Then he made another point with which I must disagree. Referring to turning agricultural labourers out of tied houses, he said that the committees were prepared to grant certificates practically to any extent. I have served on one of these committees for a great many years, and can say definitely that, certainly in my county, that is not so at all. Every case for the possession of a tied house is considered most carefully and sympathetically, and it is only where a really strong case has been made out for the farmer to have possession of the house that a certificate is granted.
  The inevitable regrets have been expressed that agricultural education has been deprived of some of its funds, and has had to curtail its activities. I am sure everyone will agree in regretting that that should be so, but in my county it has had one very peculiar result, and that is that, whereas in the past, when money was fairly freely available, agricultural education was not so highly appreciated, now, when the amount available is curtailed, and the activities of the staff also are curtailed, agriculturists generally are bitterly deploring the absence of that assistance, and are getting very keen that it should be increased and that more use should be made of it. I suppose it is human nature that, if you can have a thing to pretty well any extent, you do not appreciate it, but directly you begin to lose it you realise its advantages.
  I should like to ask the Minister whether he cannot do something to prolong the time during which the duty will remain on foreign strawberries. I am told that, as at present arranged, it will come off in the middle of June, but, as you get further into the country, the date of ripening of main-crop strawberries becomes later, and it is felt, in my part of the country at any rate, that, if strawberries are allowed to come in free after the middle of June, that will be so early that the maincrop strawberries in our parts will not be able to have the advantage of the duty. I be-
  644
  lieve that that is a matter which the Minister can alter administratively, and I would ask him whether he cannot see his way to prolong the period, at any rate till the end of the month.
  There is another matter which I have had in mind for a long time, and in which I think it will be possible to render great assistance to the poultry industry. That is the question of the marketing of eggs at the packing stations, and also in the retail shops. As the Minister knows, the present system is that the farmer sends his eggs to the packing station, the eggs are then graded, and subsequently he receives an account of the eggs he has sent, with the appropriate payment. Farmers are disinclined to enter into that sort of bargain. They like, when they send their produce to the market, to receive at once the money for what they have sold, and I believe that packing stations would become very much more used if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to altering the method so that the farmer could be paid at once for the weight of the eggs he sells, relying on the fact that the number of eggs which are above the standard will be set off by the number of eggs which are below it, and that, therefore, it will be a perfectly fair bargain both for the farmer and for the station. I believe that if, when the farmer takes his eggs to the packing station, they are weighed, and he is immediately paid the appropriate price, these packing stations will become much more popular.
  As regards the retail sale of the eggs, if a rule could be made that eggs must be sold by grade, and not simply as so many new-laid eggs, the purchaser would have to say what she wanted, whether standard grade, or pullets, or super-grade—I forget now what the technical terms are—that again would be a tremendous advantage for the industry. I believe that these two reforms would be of the greatest assistance, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to look into them, and also into the strawberry question, and that he will do his best to make some such alterations as I have suggested.
  Mr. ROSBOTHAM: I think that this Debate proves how true it is that the industry of agriculture is still in its in-

  645
  fancy, and it has been very pleasing to note the useful speeches which have been made from all quarters of the Committee this afternoon. I desire to offer my congratulations to the present Minister of Agriculture on the success, so far, of his efforts to bring back prosperity to the industry. In doing so, I should not like to omit to include his predecessor, who worked very hard to help to bring back prosperity to the industry. But there is this great difference between the position of the two right hon. Gentlemen. The present Minister is supported by an enthusiastic band of those who are keenly interested in agriculture, and are determined that something shall be done to put the industry on a proper footing and bring people back to the land. Dr. Addison was equally anxious, but he lacked the support of a House composed like the present one.
  With regard to horticulture, we have had this week a practical example, in the exhibition that was organised by the Royal Horticultural Society, of what can be accomplished with the aid of the legislation which has been recently passed by the House, and which will encourage the cultivation of more of our land and the production of more foodstuffs and other produce at home. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the question of settling an additional number of men on the land to grow the additional quantities of produce that will be required in this country owing to the legislation which has been passed.
  I notice with regret that the amount allocated for smallholdings and allotments in these Estimates is reduced by £2,000. Much disappointment has been expressed throughout the country at the cutting down of the grants for allotments during this season. We know that that has been inevitable, and the Minister has given valid reasons for it. I must pay a tribute to the Society of Friends, who have come forward and put so much energy and voluntary work into making a success of the allotments movement this year, and in helping to get together the contributions which have become necessary owing to the cutting off of the grant from the Ministry of Agriculture. I paid a visit to their office, and I found there ladies who have given up much of their pleasure, and are making great sacrifices, to help forward the movement and make
  646
  it a success, and I say that all credit is due to them.
  I had not the pleasure of hearing in full the Minister's opening speech, this afternoon, because at Four o'clock I was called to the Committee on the Children Bill to help to make a quorum, but I had the satisfaction of seeing the Children Bill carried through Committee and made ready for presentation to the House for Report and Third Reading. I would like, however, to draw attention to the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act. I know it is argued that the Act is cumbersome and costly to put into operation at the present time, and I am not disputing that, but we must agree that there are two kinds of economy—real economy and false economy. I would advise an examination of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, and, if possible, its amendment so that, even in the financial conditions of the present day, some parts of it might be put into operation, namely, those parts which would help in the settling of more men on the land on allotments and smallholdings. If that be not possible, I would suggest to the Minister that he should examine the Act of 1926 dealing with smallholdings and allotments, to see how far it would be possible to grant more powers and more latitude to the Minister, and also to the county agricultural committees, in the matter of acquiring land for allotments and smallholdings.
  I would also recommend that the financial Clause of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, whereby loans could be advanced by county agricultural committees, guaranteed by the banks, to approved applicants, should be examined. In the county from which I come, those loans did a vast amount of good, and gave great assistance to ex-service men by helping them to cultivate their smallholdings, and the county committee suffered scarcely any loss. The loans were paid with commendable punctuality, which speaks well for the ex-service men. I think that that idea might well be re-examined. Instead of the loans being granted, as they were in those days, free of interest, I think just a fair interest might be charged, say, 4 per cent. I feel sure that smallholders would be willing to pay a small interest of that character if they could have such assistance.

  647
  7.30 p.m.
  I should also like to ask the Minister whether the increase of a few thousand pounds in the expenditure under the Agricultural Marketing Act is due to the setting up of new schemes under the Act? I am sure that, if that is so, it is a matter for congratulation and satisfaction. I see that only £110 is allocated this year towards the expenses of experiments on flax, as against £10,000 in 1931. Have these experiments been abandoned, and, if so, why has their abandonment been necessary? With regard to fishery research, I notice that the sum allocated this year is £7,660, as compared with £74,460 in 1931. I would ask the Minister if the heavy expenditure last year was due to the building of the research ship referred to by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. C. Duncan), and whether the Minister can give the Committee some information with regard to the work that has been done by that research ship. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clay Cross, it was found that there were valuable fishing areas in the North Sea that could not be navigated safely until a chart had been made. With regard to the research and development in connection with shellfish to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), I notice that only £735 is allocated for that valuable work, £55 less than 1931. I should like to know if that sum includes the cost of research in the establishment of oyster beds, because that is a valuable part of research work. If we can produce our own oysters on our own shores, that is worth all the money that is spent in research. I have been to Conway and seen the valuable work that is done there in the laying down of oyster beds. With regard to agricultural research, I notice that there is a cutting down of £44,049, leaving a sum of £116,820. That seems to me to be a very small amount considering the importance of our industry. One would have thought that, with our recent legislation and the great importance that is attached to the growing of larger amounts of horticultural produce, there would be need for greater expenditure in the future than there has been in the past. I know something of the value of agricultural research in the district from which I
  648
  come, and I would refer to the research station in connection with potatoes at Ormskirk. That work has been invaluable. This year a new potato has been put on to the market, a new early kidney potato of very fine quality, and I am certain that that will be a valuable acquisition to the potato growing industry, and it will lend itself to canning purposes. It is a valuable addition, and the work that is done at Ormskirk deserves every support.
  Something has been said with regard to the neglect of the agricultural worker. I have heard the accusation that has been made against the farmer of not being willing to pay the minimum wage. In Lancashire you seldom hear of the minimum wage. The minimum does not become the maximum, and more is paid. I am surprised to hear so much said against the farmer in that respect. After all, what is required is to bring back prosperity to our arable districts and our dairying and grazing areas and our horticulture. If you bring prosperity back to those branches of the industry, you will hear very little of the nonpayment of the minimum wage.
  I am sure it is the wish of all concerned that the agricultural worker shall be looked after and shall share in the prosperity of the industry, because we look upon our rural population as a valuable national asset. Every effort should be made to make the agricultural worker as happy, contented, and prosperous as possible. I am thankful to know that much has been done in the way of providing houses for agricultural workers and it was satisfactory to hear that the Minister is prepared to consider favourably any schemes put to him at any time for the further erection of houses. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that rural districts are not as dull as they used to be. Omnibus services are opening them out and connecting them with the towns, and rural life is becoming brighter. I notice that, when we have discussions on unemployment, the benches are packed, but there is nothing in this country so able as the land to provide work if we will only do our best to bring prosperity to the industry, and legislation has been passed by this Government to make it a paying concern. There is the outlet, and I congratulate the Minister on the interest he

  649
  has taken and on the encouragement that he has given to the industry. I hope he will go forward with the same bold policy till he has brought real happiness, contentment and prosperity to the rural districts.
  Mr. RAIKES: We have heard a great deal from the Opposition about marketing, but they do not seem to have learnt what the Government has shown that they have realised—it is the first time it has been realised in the history of the country—that no marketing scheme will carry you very far unless at the same time the Government are prepared to provide a sure market for our produce. That has been done in regard to wheat, and in a minor way in regard to the commodities that come under the 10 per cent. and, instead of criticising too much, hon. Members ought to be prepared to help. By all means have marketing where marketing is necessary, but without a secure market, which we are able to get hold of by means of tariffs, marketing cannot offer a great deal. I quite realise that hon. Members opposite have the same desire as we have to see a flourishing agriculture. They want to see the rural side of life improved, because the lop-sided urban system that we have had for so many years has told very greatly against the country as a whole.
  I should like to make one or two observations in regard to the poultry industry, which is sometimes a little bit forgotten. Our aim should be to develop, so far as we can, those sides of agriculture which will give the greatest employment. In the poultry industry you have a tremendous field for greater employment. It could very well do with the setting up of a commission to consider the whole question of poultry development. Even in 1930, taking the industry as a whole, you find that poultry produce was valued at somewhere about £33,000,000, as against £28,000,000 for the whole of the wheat, oats and barley crops of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a very surprising thing. That industry is still showing signs of development. You have somewhere about 43,000,000 fowls in the country—about the same as the population. They need a considerable degree of attention. A skilled man can look after about a thousand. If you are rearing as well as using the fowls in other ways, sometimes you need one man to
  650
  500, and a still higher percentage probably in some of the big pedigree stock places.
  In the poultry industry there is perhaps a higher rate of employment per acre than even on arable land, which I know rather better than the poultry industry. The industry is developing. We have about 10 times as many eggs sold here as we sold before the War, and we have had a tremendous increase in the number of adult fowls that are kept on smallholdings. I think they have gone up by about 70 per cent. even since 1913. It is admirably suited to smallholdings, and I do not suppose there is a Member who does not desire to see smallholdings satisfactorily worked and extended consider ably further where they can make a fair profit.
  If a Commission were set up to consider the poultry industry, it would have to report to the Minister on a certain number of points which I believe are still holding the industry back. On one side you have the great gap between wholesale and retail prices, which has done a great deal to let in foreign imports. You have about £22,000,000 a year of poultry produce coming in from abroad, very largely owing to the fact that there is that gap, I believe an unfair gap, between what the producer gets and what the retailer charges. That might well be examined.
  The Commission might consider perhaps more closely the marking of poultry produce. It is held that under the present Act it is not distinguishable enough and that you ought to have the marking on rather a larger scale. It is a matter which experts could decide and which a Commission might very well consider. There is the question of liquid eggs coming in from abroad. What little we do in the way of liquid eggs is very carefully regulated in the matter of sanitary arrangements. You get a great deal of liquid eggs coming here from different countries in the South and East, where undoubtedly there are not the same sanitary precautions taken, and it might be well to consider how far it is right and proper for the health of our own people to allow them to come in. You might go still further to my mind in regard to the importation of certain forms of eggs in shell from China and Czechoslovakia. My opinion is that the greater part of the

  651
  small eggs sold in small shops, mainly from Czechoslovakia, have very little nourishment in them. They are very suitable for the liveliness of an election but I do not think they have any health giving qualities. Undoubtedly they hit the British producer very hard.
  I believe every branch of progressive agriculture ought to be encouraged, as far as any Government can encourage it, in these times. Agriculture is the most complex and the most difficult of all the industries, because it is a case of many industries in one, but I believe all parties might get together to do one thing. They might take the question of the fight between town and country out of the old warfare of party politics. That is one of the great troubles we have always had, our town representatives denying any protection that is sought for agriculture. It has gone all through our history ever since the Corn Laws. The Labour party is a Protectionist party, although they do not always recognise it. By means of reasonable Protection and by a determination to bring our people back to the land, my right hon. Friend in this Government, and I hope in Governments to come, will be able to set an example of having done something to restore to that great industry something of the prosperity which it deserves.
  Major BRAITHWAITE: Those of us who have listened to the Debate this afternoon must have noticed an alteration in its general tone and in the way in which hon. and right hon. Members are approaching the subject of agriculture. I was particularly delighted to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), who showed a certain amount of sympathy with this industry and seemed to see in it the germs of employment for some of our people. It is a state of advancement that we have not noticed for a very long time, and we welcome it from hon. Members representing the Opposition. I am certain that these Estimates presented by the Ministry of Agriculture will be accepted with more genuine pleasure at the prospect of spending money in this direction than any other Department's Estimates that come before us, because at this time Great Britain has realised that there is a necessity for a virile agricultural industry, and that we cannot
  652
  hope to carry on this great industrial country without having a better balance between the town and the country people. Also we have, by reason of the terrible economic position which we have reached, to do all that we can to increase the volume of food produced on our own soil. Therefore, these Estimates are a help in that direction. One of the most serious menaces to the curing of the problem of unemployment is the lack of prosperity in the agricultural districts. Many of the young people who were very glad and wanted to stay on the land have found no means of getting a job there and have drifted to the towns, where there were already many people unemployed, and they have only aggravated that very serious situation.
  In receiving these Estimates, I am sure the Committee would wish to thank the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, who have done their work so very well during the past year. The information which they have been able to supply to farmers has been of very great value, and the farmers are appreciating more and more the work that is carried on by the Department. I hope, however, that this Committee will not feel that all is well with agriculture now that we have a National Government, even in spite of all that they have done, for which we are very grateful, but general agriculture is still in a very peculiar position. Farmers do not yet feel to have real confidence. The Minister has restored the position as far as wheat growing is concerned, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has destroyed it entirely as far as barley is concerned, and this year our farmers will be faced with a very difficult situation in connection with the disposal of their barley crop.
  I do not want to go into the merits of the Beer Duty at this juncture, though I hope to have something to say about it later, but it will make a very great difference when it is realised that at present a quarter of barley is going to have to pay, when it is put into beer, the colossal sum of £27 in taxation. What the farmer receives £2 for, the National Government receive £27 for; and, of course, that is a situation which is going to create more and more difficulties. There will be less barley used in that direction, and I want to ask the Minister and his officials to see whether they can

  653
  help our barley growers to get more markets and whether they will consider, in providing the extra food that will be needed for the increased poultry population of the country, if it is not possible to have a national mark barley for supplying to poultry keepers. We have a national mark wheat for flour. Is there any reason why we should not have a national mark barley for feeding to British poultry, and so be able to dispose of a larger amount of barley, which when it goes in that direction, generally makes a fairly substantial profit.
  I want to say a word about the county agricultural officials. I think they are generally being made more and more use of up and down the country, but I want to see them under the more direct control of the Minister and the Ministry of Agriculture. Every different authority has a different way of looking at agriculture, and there is not that co-operation and cohesion about their efforts which many of us would like to see. The Ministry make a grant to the county authorities of 60 per cent. of the officials' wages, and therefore they ought to have a good deal more to say in the general work that is carried out by these officials. I also wanted to ask what the Ministry are doing in connection with the supply of electricity for agriculture. It is a. most important subject and one to which the Ministry ought to give the closest possible attention. We have spent millions and millions of pounds in despoiling the countryside by these wretched pylons, and the agriculturist so far has not received any benefit at all from them. We were promised, when this legislation in connection with electricity went through this House a year or two ago, that we should have cheap electricity for the countryside.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The supply of electricity comes under the Ministry of Transport, not under the Ministry of Agriculture.
  Major BRAITHWAITE: I was only trying to impress upon the Minister that probably in looking in that direction he might be able to make a substantial contribution to the farmers' working tools, and I regard electricity as one of those tools. We are very grateful to the Ministry for setting up these new Commissions to deal with specific subjects
  654
  in connection with agriculture, because everybody realises that agriculture is a number of businesses all built into one great organisation, but that each particular one has its own peculiarities, which have to be dealt with on their own merits, and by setting up this Pig Committee and this Milk Committee, we shall get down to a real, sensible, national programme in these two departments of agriculture, which will be of very great value. We are glad to see that Colonel Lane Fox has been appointed Chairman of one of the Committees, because he is a man of very considerable experience in this particular department of agriculture. I want to assure the Committee that, as far as the farmers in East Yorkshire are concerned, they are looking very anxiously to the future. They are hoping to leave their period of despair and despondency behind them when the full results of this Government's programme have been effected, and I feel that when the time comes, you will find that these farmers and their workers will be able to make a very substantial contribution towards the country's needs at this time.
  May I say a word about the Fisheries-Branch of the Ministry? The salaries of the officials in connection with the Department have been reduced, but the charges that they make for the work of these officials have in some directions been increased, and I would refer the Minister to the charges for the inspection of fishing boats in some of our smaller harbours. Those boats have to be inspected annually, and the fishermen have to pay a fee for having their boats inspected, which fee, I understand, goes to the Ministry of Agriculture. If you are cutting down those officials' wages, I do not think that is the time to put up the price of the work that they do, and I ask the Minister to see that some substantial reduction is made in these charges and that the fishermen are not handicapped any more than is necessary. We are very grateful to the Ministry this year particularly, at Bridlington Harbour, for the provision of a new fish dock, which has been of very great value to our fishermen. They are finding a substantial increase in the turnover that is done in that harbour, and I believe that the expenditure that has been in-

  655
  curred there will be found in the future to have been very justifiable indeed.
  We feel in East Yorkshire that agriculture has tremendous possibilities if it is only given the opportunity. We feel that what the fanner wants for the future is continuity of policy by all the political parties in. this House. We do not want to be chopping and changing about with variations of policies, and we are hoping that when these new tariff schemes become fully operative, they will not be altered from day to day or from month to month, but will be something that the farmers can rely upon, because I want to ask hon. Members to believe that it is not a bit of good, in any country in the world, trying to make a prosperous agriculture when commodity prices are below the cost of production. Someone has got to give way there, and the farmers and producers have been giving way all the time. It is time to get prices up to a substantial level, where reasonable profits could be made and proper and adequate wages paid to those who work in agriculture. We are on the way towards doing that, and I hope that these schemes that are being proposed, where farmers are getting closer together and co-operating more, will be of benefit in doing something to stabilise prices.
  I can assure the Minister that the farmers of the country want to play their part at this time of the nation's difficulties, and want to do whatever they can, and that they are grateful to the Ministry for the help that they are giving. I am sure that these Estimates have been carefully gone through and that the economies that have had to be made have been very necessary, but I hope the Estimates have not been so pared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Ministry will not be left a full margin with which to carry out its operations in connection with the new legislation that it is proposing. I hope that adequate provision will be made in the Estimates for a wider extension of the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture, and that we shall not find that we are not able to carry out our work properly because adequate money is not provided. In conclusion, I want to thank the Minister for what he has done so far and to wish him and the Government success in the new legislation that they are proposing.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I am sure that we all listened with very great interest to the account of the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture which the Minister gave us this afternoon, and I think we all agree that the Ministry is one of the most efficient Ministries, that it is run with the least waste, and that it gives better value for money than any other Department of the Government. At Question Time to-day the Minister said that the travelling expenses of the Ministry came to £58,000. That sounds a very large sum, but I think it is money well spent, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) stated, it is no use having a great deal of money spent on research if the results of that research are not got down to the people for whom it is intended. It would be much better to use some of the money spent on research a little more in spreading the knowledge that is obtained. A great deal is done by means of lectures, farmers' clubs, and so on in the way of spreading this knowledge, and I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend said about getting pamphlets more widely published in small market towns and getting them down to the farmers. It is no use finding out all sorts of things unless the knowledge thus obtained gets to the farmers, and they are now anxious to take advantage of scientific research. Not very many years ago farmers did not think very much of what we found out in this way, but now they fully realise the value of it and how much they can learn, and they are anxious to get all the knowledge in that way that they can.
  8.0 p.m.
  I think the Minister realises to a certain extent the very serious position of agriculture, but I am not at all sure that he realises it quite fully. I believe, or, rather, I know, that agriculture is in an absolutely desperate condition to-day. Old farmers come to me and tell me that the last year was the worst that they have had for 30 years, and unless things improve and something is done to help them, it will be utterly impossible for them to carry on. Agriculture is a large conglomeration of different industries, and not one of these different industries pays, at the present time, with the possible exception of the production of cider apples. There is not the least doubt that the production of cider apples has benefited very

  657
  largely by the national marking of cider. People now know that they can buy good cider that is really made from English apples, and that fact has been a great help to the farmers in my part of the country who grow cider apples. National marking has been a great help in other ways.
  Arable farmers have suffered a great deal more than stock farmers and the Government was quite right to deal with the question of arable farmers first by bringing in the Wheat Act. The arable farmer has not had as much as he might have had, and he will be unable to sell his barley, owing to the increased price of beer. That is going to result in a. very serious position for the grower of barley. Things have been done for the arable farmer, but they do not affect very much the farmers in the West of England, who are rather left out in the cold. The farmers in the eastern counties have been helped and have got a great deal, but the western farmers have got nothing to help them from the Government. They feel that the present Government, which was returned to restore the balance of trade, ought to realise that one of the best ways in which the balance of trade can be restored is by encouraging more production of British meat and British bacon. By encouraging the production of bacon we can do a lot to decrease the imports of bacon, the amount of which at the present time is tremendous.
  The Minister has set up a reorganisation commission for the pig industry, but it will take a long time before that Reorganisation Commission is able to report. Meanwhile, the owners of pigs are destroying their breeding sows, and, unless something is done at once, it will be too late, and when the industry is reorganised it will not be able to recover fast enough to supply the bacon which is required. I therefore beg the Minister to hasten the report of the Pig Industry Commission and to try and do something at once, without any further delay, to help the industry. He could, at any rate, give them some encouragement and make the farmers feel that something is being done to help them and prevent them from destroying their breeding sows. The pig industry can be increased very rapidly, and it is an industry which is of the very utmost importance, because it
  658
  affects every farmer of every sort throughout the country, from the biggest farmer down to the smallest smallholder. I urge upon the Minister that he should take immediate steps to encourage the industry, so that it might not be completely ruined before the Reorganisation Commission reports.
  I know that this is an exceedingly bad time to urge upon the Government anything which is going to mean extra expense, but I must once again refer to something which I have constantly talked about in this House, and that is the question of meat for the Army. It is said that a very large sum is involved, but we only ask for it for six months in the year, and I believe that the sum which was mentioned was exaggerated. It was a definite part of Conservative policy at the last election that we should supply meat to the Forces during six months of the year, and that part of the policy, which was given by the party practically as a pledge, has not been carried out. I ask the Minister to take some steps to get at any rate a portion of the meat supplied to the Forces from home-grown beef.
  I should like to refer to a point connected with the fishing industry. It is well-known that all round the Devon coast are a large number of wrecks, caused during the War, and that those wrecks do a great deal of damage—or did, I do not know whether they still do— to the gear of the fishermen. I went to the Minister of Agriculture a year or two ago with a deputation on that subject, and it was then suggested that some form of insurance might be worked out so that men when they lost their gear from no fault of their own could get compensation. I should like to know whether any steps have been taken. It was not the fault of these men that ships were wrecked on the coast during the War or were torpedoed. The fact is that the wrecks are there, ruining the fishermen, and I hope that something is going to be done by the Ministry.
  Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: As one of the representatives of the eastern counties, I am very glad to have an opportunity of intervening for a few moments in this Debate in order to put before the Minister the parlous condition of agriculture, particularly in that

  659
  district. About a year ago I was talking to one of the best-known agriculturists of this generation, and he told me that in the eastern counties there was only one farmer left, and that was the bank. I am afraid that the position has become aggravated to-day, and I think that even the one farmer is rather sorry. In those circumstances, we feel that we have a very good friend in the Minister of Agriculture. He has done a very great deal in a very short time. His opportunity, in point of time, has been of a limited nature, and we appreciate very much not only what has been done, but the various other things that have been placed upon the rails and which we hope he will do for us in the near future.
  While recognising his efforts and the very valuable instalments of policy that we have received, I would like to urge that the time factor is a very important one, in view of the desperate condition with which we are faced. The time factor is becoming one of very great urgency and seriousness. We have, of course, the Wheat Act. Some portions of the eastern counties have benefited considerably from that Act, and we are glad that they should. I am not one who would belittle the Wheat Act. On the contrary, I think that its opponents have misjudged it a good deal when they speak of it as only affecting one and one-third million acres. It affects fully three or four times that amount when one takes into consideration the fact that wheat is only one of the crops in the rotation. Although we are grateful for the Wheat Act, we feel that barley comes a little nearer home to us. A great deal of our land is unsuitable for wheat, and, unless we can carry on a successful barley cultivation, there is danger of a good deal of the land falling back to its natural condition of heath and common. That would be a very serious national loss. If we take the balance of those two efforts, one of the Ministry of Agriculture and the other unfortunately forced upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we feel that the latter probably outweighs the advantage to our farmers that they might derive out of the Wheat Bill.
  Various tariff arrangements have been started. I am one of those who, for a quarter of a century, have been strong supporters of tariffs. I feel a great
  660
  gratification that at long last tariffs should have won the place to which they are entitled. The tariffs are various and, in so far as they affect horticultural products, I think we can describe those tariffs as being of a very valuable kind. Some of the other tariffs I am afraid are too small to effect all that we would like of them. It might be fair to describe them rather as heartening than fattening. They encourage us and make us feel that the National Government have got away from that old policy under which agriculture wilted. The fact that the Government have got away from that is heartening, and is a happy augury for the future. I am afraid that in the present collapse of prices for agriculture, the 10 per cent, duty is not going to help us very much.
  From time to time in the Debate, stock-farming has been mentioned. Stock-farming up to now seems to have been the Cinderella of the agricultural position. A very well-known agriculturist, writing in the "Times" newspaper only a week or two ago, said that if all the Cabinet had been vegetarians, stock farmers could hardly have got less than they have. It is a fact that meat has been put upon the Free List and has not yet won a place which I, and my hon. Friend who preceded me, feel that it is entitled to in the dietary of the Forces of the Crown while they are staying at home. Prices have been falling with a ruinous velocity, and the position of the stock farmer is a very precarious one at the present time. We are very grateful to the Minister for what he has done, and we consider that he has done a very great deal during the time that he has been in charge of our agriculture. We realise that the National Government have supported the industry in a generous measure, and that they have many other claims upon them and cannot devote their attention entirely to this great industry. I would like to stress again that the time factor is all-important.
  I would associate myself with the hon. Member who urged that we should have the reports from the commissions hastened so far as is practicable. I notice in recent times a tendency, which I am glad to say has not been present in the Debate to-day, for critics to say that any Government help given to agriculture must be conditional upon farmers reorganising themselves. In general

  661
  terms, one agrees with reorganisation, but the most valuable and the best reorganisation is that which comes out of the industry and is worked by the industry. The only point I desire to make in that regard is to suggest that we must not put the cart before the horse. It is impossible for farmers, out of their depleted resources, to carry out reorganisation schemes until they have a good programme to which to work. Reorganisation is a matter both of time and of money, and we cannot reasonably expect any very great launching out in that direction unless there is a programme.
  I wish to associate myself with the remarks which have been made during the Debate as to the vital necessity for security, a programme which will not change from time to time, but will run upon a national basis and be supported so as to give that continuity and sense of security of which the industry is so constantly in need. We thank the Minister for what he has done, and congratulate him upon his courage in facing some of our difficult problems. We ask him not to grow weary in well-doing, but to persevere and to show even more courage and a greater lead in tackling the problem. If he does that I am convinced that the fanning community will eagerly respond and work with him.
  Major HILLS: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington) in saying a few words about the position of the stock-raiser. Stock prices are now being broadcast, which, I understand, is a very valuable service of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and I should like to know whether the Ministry are themselves concerned with the broadcasting of those prices. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who criticised various details and aspects of the agricultural problem, but I missed from his speech the common, broad view of the industry as a whole. As he was speaking, I felt great regret that he was not using his very considerable abilities in trying to help lift the industry out of the depressed condition which he knows very well it occupies. There are, of course, points to be criticised with regard to marketing and
  662
  the administration of the wages boards, and here and there, but the big thing we have to do—and I am prepared to believe that he wants to do it just as much as we do—is to try to make agriculture a prosperous part of our social system. What particularly caused me to rise to-night was the statement which he made in regard to production. The hon. Member criticised the composition of the two committees set up to study milk and pig products. His ground of criticism of the second committee was that the committee would look at the industry from the point of view of production; that production would be their primary consideration, and marketing their second consideration.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I said that so many members of the commission were believers in Protection in advance that I feared they would concentrate upon the quantitative regulation of imports rather than emphasise the organisation of the marketing side.
  Major HILLS: I think that the hon. Member will see when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, that he criticised the committees on the ground that production would be their primary consideration. The hon. Member must agree that production must be the primary consideration. Agriculture is the production of food from the soil. Production must come first, and it is no use talking of distributing the products of agriculture until you have the products of agriculture. We are suffering from the fact that production is falling because it is not profitable. If you deal with prices, you will get all the production you desire. Marketing, important as it is, must come second. Also, it is no good improving marketing if the people who benefit in consequence are not the farmers but the foreigners. You have to study production. It is at the root of all national systems, whether industry or agriculture. In contradiction to the view of the hon. Gentleman, I hope that those committees will make production their primary consideration. He and I differ, though respecting each other's opinions, upon the merits of Free Trade and Protection. The hon. Gentleman is a convinced Free Trader; I believe that you must protect agriculture. You cannot protect industry and leave agriculture out.

  663
  The hon. Member drew a moving picture of the damage by floods at Bentley in the Don Valley. I agree that drainage ought to be attended to and that the inhabitants and farmers ought to be protected against having their houses and lands flooded. I entirely agree with that object, but will not the hon. Gentleman help us to keep back another flood or fog, that of despair—despair is not too strong a word —which has arisen in the stock-raising parts of the great county of Yorkshire, with which both of us are familiar? I am sure that he must be aware of the very serious position of the stock-raising areas. To-day we are promised help for pig products, and we are promised the reorganisation of milk products. Those are very valuable matters, and I hope that they will eventuate into a good scheme. We have also the Wheat Quota, but the unfortunate stock raiser, the man who produces the beef and the mutton, up to now has been left out. Even the Army has been denied to him as a source of supply. The hon. Member knows very well that many a farmer in recent years, frightened about arable farming, has turned to stock raising as an alternative, and now stock raising is a more important part of agriculture than wheat growing. We have spent a large part of our time in helping the producer of about 5 per cent of the product of the land and we are leaving out the producer of a far larger percentage.
  Does the hon. Member think that we can bring prosperity to the stock raiser by marketing alone? He must have something more. I believe that we could do it by some sort of Protection, or quota, or some other system, without unduly raising prices. If production is carried on at a loss it is not for the good of the community. If you say that you will not take any means of making production profitable, why then not say that you will buy all that you need from abroad? I know that you do not say that. I believe that the Labour party agree with me that a price is worth paying to save the stock raiser and I appeal to the hon. Member, who speaks always with great fairness on these questions, to look at the position that stock raising is in at the present time. Can he find any means of bringing prosperity to
  664
  it, short of Protection? I suppose all of us if we could find any method would gladly adopt it. I have given what thought I can to the question and have tried to the best of my ability to examine it from all angles, and I am driven to the conclusion that the only means of preserving stock raising in this country is to impose a tax on imported meat.
  Sir JOHN GANZONI: All those who come from agricultural areas have a good deal for which to thank the present Minister of Agriculture and the present Government. There is the Wheat Act, the Abnormal Importations Act and the Import Duties. We very badly need assistance in the agricultural areas, because agriculture is, I am afraid, one of the most depressed industries. From what I have said it will be implied that I associate myself with agriculture areas. I come from the middle of one. It is true that my own particular constituency of Ipswich is a borough, the only borough in that part of the country. It is a very compact borough. I can walk to any hall, chapel, church, or possibly circumstances may arise when I might walk to any cinema on a Sunday—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or to a public house!"]—or to a public house, if you like—public houses make good use of the products of agriculture—in 10 minutes. That borough has widespread agricultural county divisions surrounding it. We depend entirely upon agriculture. Our corporation has just spent £10,000 on restoring our cattle market. We have a big corn market, and our shops and the public houses are earning legitimate profits in a lawful trade by supplying the workers in agriculture who come in from the county.
  There is no Estimate for which I would vote with greater pleasure than the one for the Ministry of Agriculture. All around us in Suffolk and Norfolk the farmer and the farmer's man have found things have failed them in turn—wheat, barley, pigs. Then they turn to stock. They keep stock for eight or nine months and feed them during the autumn and winter and sell them in the following year for less than they gave originally, taking no account whatever of what has been spent in keep. Beet has just served to keep the farmer alive, but there is no great profit to be made out of that

  665
  in East Anglia, and we are very much afraid that unless the Minister of Agriculture, our good friend, can infuse something of his spirit into the Chancellor of the Exchequer a fresh blow is falling upon our agricultural areas and upon our borough.
  A very few years ago, perhaps only two or three years ago, unemployment was scarcely known in agriculture. To-day unemployment is a very real and very serious problem, especially in the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk. We have far too much unemployment in my own borough constituency, and we are naturally most anxious to support the Minister of Agriculture in continuing the good work he is doing and in doing anything it is possible to prevent an increase of unemployment, which is already such a deadly menace and such a canker in our midst. I have heard during the last two days of a brewery in Bury St. Edmunds and of three maltings—malt-ings full of malt—that are closing. Therefore, what is the prospect next year for barley? Difficulties accumulate one on the top of the other upon the unfortunate farmer, and they react immediately upon the farmer's man. Therefore, while thanking the Minister and while assuring him that if there had been a Division, which I do not think there will be, I should have had the greatest pleasure in voting for his Estimates, I beg him, if he can, to infuse a little of his spirit into the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and combine with him in that team work which will ensure that our agriculturists, especially those who depend upon barley in East Anglia, are not visited with an even greater calamity than the calamities that they have known during the last two or three years.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. PERKINS: I do not wish to detain the House more than a few minutes, but I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on a very remarkable achievement. To have saved the immense sum of £630,000 on the civil servants employed by the Ministry is a very fine and remarkable performance. Nevertheless, some of us feel that it would be still possible to make further economies in the number of civil servants employed by the Ministry. On looking through the Estimates very closely we see that under one heading, on
  666
  page 81, the Establishment Division, there has been an increase in the number of people employed by the Ministry. We find the same thing on page 81, the Finance Division, the same thing on page 83, the Market Division, and finally, on page 96, we find exactly the same thing in regard to Kew Gardens. I hope that the Minister will explain to the House, in a very straightforward manner, why it has been necessary to increase the number of the civil servants in these four departments at a time when economy is of vital importance. I do not want to take away credit from what he has already done but I cannot but feel a little critical of the increases in these four sections of his Department.
  I suggest that perhaps the reason why the increases have been necessary is in order to provide machinery for the Bacon Reorganisation Committee. We have been told that the bacon industry is hopelessly disorganised, that the farmers are not producing the right kind of pig and that the bacon factories cannot get hold of any pigs at any price. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friends on that point. They are perfectly accurate when they say that the bacon industry is hopelessly disorganised, and I welcome this reorganisation committee because at last we shall have a body which is capable of compelling if necessary the bacon industry to organise itself on modern lines. But, although we welcome this reorganisation committee, there are some of us who are a little doubtful as to its effectiveness in restricting the import of bacon into this country.
  There are only two ways in which they can be restricted, either by means of quantitative restrictions, a quota, or by the simple, straightforward and honest method of a small annually increasing duty. The Government, no doubt in order to make it easier for the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) to sit in the National Government, have turned down the simple method of a, duty and have adopted instead the highly complicated method of a quota. It may work, I hope it will, but I hope when we see the quota that it will be nothing like so complicated as the wheat quota, which is now the law of the land. Some hon. Members, myself included, spend a little time in solving cross-word puzzles and we would willingly tackle the most com-

  667
  plicated cross-word puzzle rather than explain the wheat quota to an audience of farmers. It is one of the most complicated Measures ever brought forward in this House, and I hope that the bacon quota will be nothing like so complicated as the wheat quota.
  I also hope that it will not mean a great increase in the number of civil servants. I deplore the fact that the Government has not had the courage to stick to their beliefs and adopt the simple and straightforward method of a small but annually increasing duty on pig products coming into this country. If they had done so they would once again have restored confidence to the bacon industry, sent a word of encouragement to pig dealers, and shown the industry that there they really meant business, and the industry would have responded, under the shelter of a small tariff; the pig population would possibly have doubled itself in two or three years' time and in four or five years we should have captured a large proportion if not all of the imports of the pig products coming into this country.
  I deplore the fact that the Government have not faced the issue, because it would have been simpler and more effective, a more honest and straightforward method of dealing with the matter and, further, it would have been understood by the farmers. It has been tried out in other industries and has been successful. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture one question. When we have this quota scheme, is it to be designed merely to check imports into this country, is it designed merely to prevent a sudden increase of imports, or is it to be designed to win back for the British farmer the whole of that £38,000,000 of pig products which are now coming into this country? When we see the quota I hope it will be designed to capture in four or five years the whole of the import trade of pig products into this country.
  Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: It is with great pleasure that I notice a reduction of £500,000 in the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. My pleasure in looking at these figures is in my capacity as a Member of this House and in looking at them from the point of view of the National interest, but I am bound to say that in looking at them as an
  668
  agriculturist my pleasure is not so great, because I fear that this reduction may mean some lull in the useful activities in the Minister of Agriculture. It is not necessary to dwell on the depression in the agricultural industry, it is known to every hon. Member. When things go wrong with us we always want to blame someone. The farmer is merely human, and when things go wrong with him he also wants to blame someone. In the first place, he blames the weather, and if that is not sufficient he turns round and blames the Government. The Minister of Agriculture undoubtedly realises that agriculture is in a difficult position by the number of letters he has received, but he is not alone in this respect. Every representative of an agricultural constituency is receiving communications from his constituents expressing their dissatisfaction here there and everywhere. Many of us spend a great deal of time and a great deal of energy in influencing, and in some cases initiating, legislation for the good of our constituents. Sometimes we are successful; sometimes we are not. When we are successful, how many letters expressing gratitude do we receive? Very few. But if we are not successful our post bag is full of those who have a grievance and a curse against us.
  We have had a National Government for some considerable time. I represent an agricultural constituency, and am an agriculturist myself, and I am prepared to say on behalf of agriculture that the National Government have done more for the industry in the last six months than any other previous Government. We have had the Horticultural Products Act, the Abnormal Importations Bill and the Wheat Quota Bill. In every one of these Measures I took what part I was able to take in assisting their passage through this Houe. What expressions of gratitude did I receive? Not too many! But last week the announcement was made that there would be no reduction in the price of beer and my post bag has been full of communications from those who condemn the iniquity of the continuance of the present price of beer. Some of my constituents appear to have forgotten all my activities with regard to the wheat quota, and all the rest of it, and are upset because of the price of beer. I think we should get on better in

  669
  this world if we were a little more liberal with our thanks and a little less free with our curses. It is true, generally, that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, and that is why this evening I am going to express my gratitude to the Minister for what he has done to help agriculture.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is the hon. Member the honey or the fly?
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I was hoping to be able to administer the honey to catch the fly. I sincerely trust that the Minister realises that a considerable section of agriculturists are prepared to, and do, express their appreciation of his efforts, during the past six months, to help agriculture and that these honeyed words may stiumlate him to take similar action with regard to bacon and later on to beef. They may also stimulate him to try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us a little off beer.
  The Minister in his opening statement said that in all probability there might be some criticism of the reductions proposed in these Estimates, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will take it amiss if I offer some criticisms on that ground. I was very pleased to see the reduction with regard to expenditure on land drainage. It is no good spending huge sums on draining and reclaiming land which is not now in cultivation until we have made land a possible economic proposition when it is cultivated. The industry must first be made a paying proposition, and then money can be spent on land drainage. There are, however, some other reductions on which I should like to express criticism. I do not like the reduction in regard to the collection of agricultural statistics. I know that, for a period, agriculturists did not like filling up forms and returns, and resented those inquiries which are necessarily entailed in the collection of statistics.
  To-day, however, the farmer realises the value of those statistics. The information which is obtained by the Ministry, for instance, in regard to the pig population, enables the farmer to know whether he ought to extend or to decrease pig production. Statistics as to the acreage under various crops is also useful to the farmer. All this information enables him to know whether it would pay him to
  670
  put a particular crop on the market at a given time, or whether it would pay him better to hold it until later. I hope that there will be no reduction in the Ministry's activities in that direction—in fact I would like to see them extended. If the agriculturists who are growing potatoes, or possibly carrots or other vegetables, could give to the Ministry in January estimates of the acreage which it was intended to grow, and if it was found that the total acreage was in excess of the normal, the Ministry could then inform the various growers that they ought to reduce the acreage of that crop by 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. The agriculturist would be protected in that way from over-production of those commodities.
  A reduction of some £77,000 is proposed in reference to agricultural education. I value agricultural education very highly. The farmer is cautious, and some years ago he looked with considerable doubt on agricultural education, but he is now beginning to realise its value. It has been remarked that it is only as soon as an attempt is made to cut down agricultural education that farmers begin to desire it. The reason is because, year by year, farmers are realising more and more the importance of agricultural education. In order to extend scientific agriculture and mechanisation as applied to agriculture, it is essential that the farmer should, if possible, receive a scientific education. Another criticism which I have to make concerns the proposed cut of £44,000 in agricultural research. That, also, is a branch of the Ministry's activities which is being appreciated more and more each year by agriculturists. If we are to compete with foreign countries in agricultural production, we must keep our production up-to-date, and that depends to a large extent on agricultural research. As I have mentioned in this House on a previous occasion I worked for a considerable period at agricultural research in Cambridge, under Professor Sir Rowland Biffen, in bringing forward the "Little Joss" and "Yeoman" varieties of wheat. It is essential that the varieties of wheat grown should be suited to the districts in which they are grown. There are some districts in which "Yeoman" is suitable and others in which "Little Joss" is suitable, and it is only by research that we can obtain

  671
  information as to the parts of the country which are suited to certain varieties of wheat, and where those varieties will produce the best results.
  There are also research activities in progress with regard to potatoes and other crops. It is not only within the Ministry, that agricultural research is taking place, but also in every agricultural college throughout the country, and I would like to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to bring together, within the Ministry, all the information obtained by the various agricultural colleges throughout the country, and to make that information available to the agriculturists of the country. If it were made available in a volume issued once a year, agriculturists would willingly pay for it, because, as I say, the agriculturist of to-day is anxious to make full use of all the agricultural knowledge available. I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) who, evidently, realises the value of scientific knowledge applied to agriculture. I was about to interrupt him when he mentioned the question of lime, to say that lime was essential to certain varieties of wheat, and was not required with others. There are certain manurial ingredients essential to all kinds of land, one of them being phosphates and the other nitrogen. If it were possible for the Ministry to provide information as to the proportion of phosphates, of potash, of nitrogen, and of lime that are essential to particular crops, potatoes, barley or wheat, such information would be very useful to the agriculturist.
  The same remark applies with regard to feeding cattle and pigs. Albuminoids and fats are essential constituents of the food, and it would be of extreme use to the farmer in feeding cattle for meat if he could obtain information from the Minister as to the ratios of carbohydrates, albuminoids, and fats in various foods. In order to do that he wants to know the percentages of those things in certain foods, and, if the Minister could publish a volume every year (containing the results of agricultural research in order to make these facts available to the farmer, he would do a useful work in helping the agriculturist to fight the distress of the present
  672
  times. As an agriculturalist who represents an agricultural constituency, I appreciate the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture, and particularly of the Minister himself, in all that has been done to help agriculture during the last six months. On behalf of agriculture, I beg of him to go on in the future as he has done up to the present. If he will do for the grazing farmer and the meat producer what he has done for the arable farmer, there will be some hope for this great industry.
  Mr. GLOSSOP: While I much regret that it has been found necessary to make cuts in the grants that the Ministry provide for agriculture, I realise that in times of national difficulty our industry has to bear cuts with other industries. I want to make one or two criticisms which I hope that the Minister will appreciate as being made in a constructive spirit. It is difficult for any agriculturist to criticise, for he is always regarded as a perpetual grumbler like all farmers. If we farmers are grumblers, I assure the Minister that it is due to our mental make up and that it in no way represents what we actually think. I know of a farmer who always grumbles; and after one extra good fanning year, such as I believe they had occasionally before I was born, he was asked what his views were with regard to the season. He frankly admitted that it was the best agricultural year he had ever had, but he concluded by saving, "But the excellent crops we have had will be a terrible drain on the goodness of the soil."
  9.0 p.m.
  I wish to refer to two of the larger items which appear in these Estimates. The first is the grant given by the Ministry to local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1925, in relation to tubercular cattle. The Ministry give a grant of 75 per cent, to local authorities in connection with cattle slaughtered under the tuberculosis regulations. I am not altogether happy that the working of the scheme is resulting in full benefit to the country, particularly with regard to the way in which the compensation is paid. The compensation is largely paid in the first place on the value of the animals, but it varies according to the density of the disease in particular animals. A cow can have tuberculosis not only in the

  673
  lungs, but in the liver, the intestines, the joints, or the neck, and, when the owner notifies the local authority that he suspects the animal is suffering from tuberculosis, and the local veterinary surgeon agrees, the animal is slaughtered. If only one part of the body is affected with tuberculosis, the compensation is relatively high, no matter how long the disease may have been affecting that particular organ. If when the animal is slaughtered it is found that the disease exists in several parts of the body, although in a very slight degree, the compensation is relatively less, because the disease is said to be more general throughout the body. I consider that a cow which has advanced tuberculosis in one particular organ may be a more dangerous source of infection to the rest of the animals in the herd than a cow which has localised tuberculosis in possibly a couple of joints of the legs.
  Under the present system of awarding compensation there is no real inducement for the conscientious owner, who imagines that one of his animals is suffering from tuberculosis, to notify the local authority. If the animal is only slightly suffering, it may be three years before it gets into a bad state, and the owner has a fear that, if he notifies the animal as being suspected of tuberculosis, he may get only small compensation owing to the fact that the disease is generalised. If the animal is badly affected, and it is obvious to the owner that the animal will soon die, he notifies it, not because he desires to rid the country of tuberculosis, but because he knows that compensation under this Order is much more profitable than the price he will get from the knacker for the animal. The Committee is asked to approve Estimates under this category amounting to £53,500, which is an increase of £7,000 on last year. The Committee, in voting such a large sum, are entitled to be assured that we are getting the best value for the money. The object of spending this enormous amount is not to give money to fanners who have tubercular cattle; the whole idea is to get infected animals notified at as early a date as possible and slaughtered so that we may eliminate one of the most terrible cattle disease scourges. I suggest to the Minister that it would be worth the while of his Department to consider whether it is not possible to alter the methods under
  674
  which compensation is paid in the case of the destruction of tuberculous animals.
  The second point I wish to put forward relates to milk recording. No greater benefit has been conferred on the dairy and cattle breeding industry in this country than the giving of a Government grant towards the development of milk recording. In the Estimates I see that under the head, "Grants for milk recording and for heavy horse stallions, bulls, boars and sheep" there is to be a reduction of £5,000. I do not know whether that indicates a reduction in the grant to milk recording societies, but I would point out to the Minister that these societies are having a very bad time and are finding it extremely diffiult, owing to the adverse conditions prevailing in agriculture, to continue their excellent work without making a loss. Therefore, I hope there will be no cut in their case. Although, as I have said, the milk recording movement has conferred a great benefit on the industry, I regret to say that it is not at present sufficiently widely adopted. The scheme as it exists is admirable for the pedigree stock breeder, the man who is keeping a very precise record of his cattle, but ordinary dairy farmers who, after all, are those who really matter, because they are providing the milk for the masses of our people, have been slow to adopt this movement largely, I think, on account of the scheme being a little too complicated. I hope it may be possible to try to popularise the milk recording movement by introducing a rather simpler scheme which, though possibly not so desirable as the present one, would require less book-keeping and would make more of an appeal to the ordinary commercial dairy farmer.
  Further, I think the time has come when the Minister should try to work in the production of milk of a higher butter fat content with the milk recording movement. At present the work of improving the butter fat content of milk is run apart from the milk recording scheme, in contrast with what is happening in other enlightened countries, where the people demand milk of higher quality. After all, we in England only use milk for colouring tea. In other countries, where they drink milk on account of its health-giving properties, they pay for it on a butter fat basis. Whether we look to North America or to Europe we find that

  675
  milk is sold on its butter fat content basis. The people wish for real milk, and are prepared to pay a little for for it than they will pay for milk of a low butter fat content. We shall have to contemplate introducing such a system into this country, and the Minister ought to work in with the milk recording scheme a system of recording officially the butter fat content. Scottish Members will know that the Scottish Milk Recording Association already have a scheme. The records of their cattle are taken every three weeks, whereas in England they are taken only every six weeks, and every cow is tested for the butter fat content of its milk every time the recorder makes a visit. There is no doubt the Scottish scheme is very much more efficient than the milk recording scheme we have in England, and I hope the Minister will consider the question of instituting a similar scheme in this country.
  Money spent on milk recording societies is very well spent, because, more than anything else, it encourages the introduction of business methods in dealing with dairy herds. It is impossible for any farmer who is dealing with his dairy herd on a scientific basis to run it profitably unless he adopts the milk recording system in its entirety. Milk recording tends to make the dairy producing industry very much more efficient; by increasing production it tends to lower the costs of production, and that ought to benefit the masses of the people in the towns who consume milk. It is no exaggeration to say that herds which a few years ago were giving an average of 450 gallons per cow are now, as the result of the adoption of the milk recording scheme, the elimination of bad cows and the introduction of more scientific feeding, now yielding up to 800 or 900 gallons per cow. It is a national asset if such an improvement can be brought about. Further, the more uniform adoption of milk recording would make the work of the livestock officers who go about the country inspecting our herds much more valuable. Milk recording methods introduce businesslike methods, and if in addition to keeping records of the milk a record is kept of when the cow calves and when it is put to the bull it is all so much more helpful to the livestock officers who are trying to stamp out tuberculosis and contagious abortion.
  676
  While we have no alternative but to submit to these Estimates, in spite of the fact that there are cuts in the money devoted to our industry, I hope that when times are more prosperous those cuts will be restored, because there is no industry in this country which is in more need of development than agriculture. There is no industry upon which money can be spent to better advantage in extended education and research. Money spent in that direction will add to the national wealth through the greatest industry which we still have in this country.
  Mr. LECKIE: I intervene in this discussion in order to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to do everything he can to assist and to encourage the allotments movement in industrial areas. I know something of the good work of this movement in South Staffordshire, and I am sure that the agricultural Members who have spoken to-day would be amazed if they could see the quality of the produce raised from allotments there by men who are ordinarily engaged in ironworks or the leather trade or similar occupations. In Walsall, which is my own constituency, we have several thousand allotments, supplied almost entirely by the town council, at very low rents, and those allotments are being worked to the full. Last year, through the instrumentality and the enthusiasm of the minister of the Central Hall in Walsall, unemployed men were brought into the movement for the first time. Through his interest and the help of the town council 50 unemployed men were given allotments and provided with seeds and implements, and as a result there was at the end of the season a most creditable display of produce. It amazed many people who had not realised what could be done. That movement has gone ahead notwithstanding the regrettable fact that the grant for seeds which has hitherto come from the Government was not available this year. Happily the Society of Friends came to the rescue, supplying seeds at greatly reduced prices, and I believe there are 100 unemployed men working allotments this year.
  There are infinite possibilities for this work to be increased, and it can be done at very little cost. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to entertain favourably the increasing of the grants

  677
  for this work when he comes to consider the Estimates for next year. It is too late to do anything this year, but no better work could be done for the unemployed than to give them allotments, and encourage them to undertake this kind of work. I am told—and I believe it to be a fact—that the difference in these men since they worked allotments is remarkable. Now they really have something to do, and the work has given them self-respect and a knowledge that they can at least do something. This has encouraged them to go on with the work. In addition, these men are producing valuable food, which has been a splendid asset to the domestic cupboards. I feel that a few more thousand pounds spent in this direction would be well spent, and would produce an excellent dividend in helping the unemployed to do useful work and produce food as well.
  Lieut. Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: In this Debate so far there has been very little criticism of what the Minister of Agriculture has done, but a good deal of urging him to do more. That is due to the fact that there is at the present time a greater sympathy with agriculture in the towns as well as in the rural districts than has been the case for a long time. There is a general feeling in the country that the National Government has done more good for agriculture in six months than any Government in the past has done for a long time. The Minister of Agriculture passed the Wheat Bill, and he is carrying out investigations into milk and pig products, but I cannot help reminding the right hon. Gentleman that nothing has been done in regard to beef and mutton. I hope that when the investigations into milk and pig products have been completed, the Minister will take into consideration the question of beef and mutton.
  I understand that our delegation at Ottawa will be assisted by agricultural experts. It is with regard to meat that the Dominions compete most with our home producers, and it is very necessary that the interests of our home producers should be adequately represented at Ottawa. I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said to the effect that the reduction in the number of inspectors had not caused any loss
  678
  of efficiency in the administration of the Agricultural Wages Act. The vast majority of farmers are anxious to carry out their obligations under that Act. They would like to pay more wages than they do at the present time, and it is only right to say that many of them have kept men in work whom they could ill afford to employ in order that they should not lose their jobs. But there are black sheep in every profession and it is necessary that the administration of the Agricultural Wages Act should be properly supervised.
  I do not suppose that it would be in order for me to go into any detail with regard to rural housing, but I urge the Minister to see that that question is pushed forward as much as possible. I think it is in the better provision of house accommodation in the rural districts that we shall find a solution of the difficult question of tied houses. If the measures which the Government are undertaking result in increased prosperity, a much greater supply of houses will be needed in the rural districts. It is the experience of every representative of an agricultural district that they find very few young men are going into agricultural employment as labourers. The reason for that is because the wages are low and housing accommodation is often bad and there are very few prospects of advancement. One reason why I welcome what the Government have done, and what I hope they are going to do for agriculture, is that it will once again make agriculture worth while for the young man to go into with some hope of advancement. I believe that the policy they have adopted will stop the flow of the agricultural population towards the towns, and will once more restore prosperity throughout the country districts.
  Mr. McKIE: The subject which we have been discussing to-day is one which at the present moment is of supreme importance. This Parliament was elected to support a National Government, and also to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the basic industries of this land and a rehabilation of the countryside. There is no doubt that more interest is being taken in agriculture to-day than has been the case for a long time. I wish to join in the many con-

  679
  gratulations which have been offered by hon. Members to the Minister of Agriculture for all that he has done, on behalf of the National Government, in seeing that agriculture shall have care and consideration at long last meted out to it. We have had a much disputed wheat quota Bill passed into law so far as this House is concerned. That is only the first step, but a very great step along the road in the right direction. This afternoon we have had two remarkable maiden speeches dealing with agriculture both from the arable and livestock point of view. I am one who is almost entirely concerned with the animal production side of agriculture. The Debate last night gave those of us who are connected with that branch of agriculture additional reasons for hoping that that side of the industry is to have special attention in the near future. This afternoon we were all glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture emphasising the large percentage of the animal production side of the industry.
  I want to say a word with regard to two branches of animal production. First of all, I will deal with this question from the dairyman's point of view. There is no doubt that that branch of the industry is in a greater plight to-day than it has ever been before, and unless the dairy branch of agriculture is very carefully and drastically handled in the near future, there can be no doubt that those who have invested very large sums of capital in that branch of the industry will be entirely submerged.
  I have had during the last few days some remarkable representations made to me. It has been pointed out that individual and collective efforts have so far entirely failed because those engaged in dairying have been up against forces which have undoubtedly been too strong for them. The first of these is foreign competition, which I can only label as unfair, in the shape of dried milk imports which are made possible owing to reasons of which we here have no conception. The 10 per cent,ad valorem duty under the Import Duties Act will, no doubt, be of material assistance towards helping to right matters. We have not yet had time to realise what the value of the 10 per cent. duty will be. But all the duties will not help to
  680
  put the dairy farmer in the position in which, undoubtedly, he ought to be put. The monetary policy of the Government will, no doubt, also be a help in so far as it tends to drive prices up, but, having regard to some of the statements made by my hon. Friends opposite in the course of the Debate last night that the Government were, perhaps, in this respect going in for a gambling concern, those of us who are interested in dairying propositions are not too sanguine. At all events, we do not wish to make another losing bet and that is why I respectfully suggest to the Minister that in regard to the dairy farmer, we ought to have some regulation of prices to ensure that the producer gets a fair and square deal, while by no means neglecting the interests of the consumer.
  What has been said to-night about the interests of the towns emboldens me to say that the consumers in the towns do not fear any legislation in this direction, but are only too willing to give those in the countryside the relief for which they are asking. With regard to the livestock-raising branch of the industry, the same considerations hold good. There can be no doubt that the industry of livestock-raising affords during the course of the year the maximum amount of agricultural employment, and that, I think, is a most important point for all of us to remember at the present serious Juncture. It ensures the presence of green crops in rotation, and thereby makes directly for an increased demand for agricultural labour. We have heard in this Parliament a great deal about the conditions of the labouring classes as a whole, almost entirely from the point of view of the townsman or the representatives of the industrial areas. Sometimes when I think of all those sallies that are made upon the means test, which is sometimes called the "mean" test, I am reminded of the agricultural labourer who is out of work, or who may quite possibly find himself out of work in the near future, and for whom there is no provision whatsoever. The agricultural labourer is a descendant of those small landholders and landowners who were displaced as a result of the enclosing of land. Through force of economic circumstances they had to give way to the tenant-farmer who held the land under the landlord.

  681
  9.30 p.m.
  By the same force of economic circumstances in recent years we have seen the breaking up of large estates and the farmer owns his own land, but the position of the agricultural labourer is just the same, in as much as he has only his agricultural wages to depend upon. He has no direct interest in the produce of the soil. Just as in the 'Seventies and the 'Eighties the question of security of tenure for the tenant farmer was fought out in this House, under William Ewart Gladstone, so to-day we have to find security for his produce in the shape of markets. Above all, we have to make sure of the secure position of the agricultural labourer. When matters pertaining to agriculture are brought up, it is nearly always the farmer who is spoken of, and people, whether in this House or outside, seem to forget that for every farmer there are many agricultural labourers. To-day their position is a very insecure one indeed.
  Not many months ago I was present at many farmers' meetings, and I am very sorry to say that at several of them it was said that if the present condition of things continued, the only way to solve the problem would be to reduce the wages of the farm servants. We have heard to-day about evasions of the agricultural wages' boards and also some rather hard things said about my friends the farmers. I am going to make bold to contradict those statements. There are black sheep in every flock undoubtedly, but there is no decent farmer who would seek to reduce the wages of his men simply for the sake of securing an unfair advantage. It is the force of economic circumstances alone that is driving him to it. In this country and in Wales there is the security, at all events, of the agricultural wages' boards. In Scotland the agricultural worker has no protection at all. It has often been said that in the past, when industry in this country was in a flourishing condition, agriculture flourished. That statement I must also most definitely contradict, because in the 'Seventies, 'Eighties and 'Nineties and particularly in the 'Seventies and 'Nineties, when industry was flourishing, agriculture was almost as depressed as it is to-day. But now there is a chance when a Parliament such as this is supporting a Government such as
  682
  the present one. The great feature of the last election was that a great battle was fought and a great victory was won. The victory was our fiscal freedom and it is that freedom that we have to realise and enjoy to-day, and not suffer ourselves to be stifled by the miasma that arises from the fool's paradise of so-called Free Trade.
  Lord SCONE: The Minister has tonight had the experience—rare it is true, but very well deserved—of being almost overwhelmed with floral tributes. I must add my quota to them, but in offering my bouquet I trust he will not take exception when he discovers in the middle of it by no means half a brick, but just a small pebble of criticism. The criticism that I have to make relates to barley. A few days ago I put a question in this House to the right hon. Gentleman, and his reply was that imported barley was now subject to the 10 per cent. duty, and he hinted that the barley growers might well be content with that. I must respectfully submit that that is not going to solve the problem so far as barley is concerned.
  There has been all over the country, during the past few years, a steady reduction of the acreage under barley, and it continues at the present day; and the unfortunate circumstances which, at any rate up to the present, have prevented the Chancellor of the Exchequer from reducing a tax which has been on the lips of most Members of the House during the past few days, have tended only too much to aggravate the situation. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the question of distinguishing between malting barley and feeding barley is still under consideration, but I must remind him that it has been under consideration now for a good many months, and I hope that he and his Department will be able to make a definite statement on this subject before many weeks have passed. If that be not done, it certainly will lead to more land going down to grass, and to still fewer men being employed in the growing of barley.
  I must differ most respectfully in one item from the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), who, I regret, is not in his place at the moment to hear my criticism. It is with regard to the grants for land drainage. England is particularly

  683
  unfortunate in that respect, because this year, I understand, she will get no drainage grants, while in Scotland we shall still get them, though in a reduced form. This discovery moved the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) to very righteous wrath when my question elicited the information, and, after all, he was justified, because, although the hon. Member for Leominster made out, as I understood, that drainage grants applied principally to arable land, it must be remembered that drainage is no less important, and, indeed, very probably is more important, in regard to hill pasture. There is a very large quantity of land in the North of England, as there is in Scotland, which is likely, if drainage is not continued on the present scale, to become so waterlogged that it will take a number of years to restore the pasture. I myself am of the opinion that it is harder to restore grass land that has become waterlogged to its former condition than it is in the case of arable land.
  There is only one further point to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. Information has reached me within the last 24 hours—I have received a telegram while I have been at the House today—that it is very probable that, in the course of the next month or six weeks, an enormous increase will take place in the imports of Spanish potatoes into this country. For some reason which has not yet been fully disclosed to me—I hope to get information with regard to it in a day or two, but it is undoubtedly connected with the 10 per cent. duty and other duties that are now in force—the Spaniards have not dug their potatoes nearly so early as they normally do, but are going to dig them some six weeks later, and my information is to the effect that anything up to 250,000 tons of potatoes will be imported during May and June, and possibly another 150,000 tons during July. I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration that, if this takes place, it will be a very severe Wow to the early potato industry in this country, and one which well merits some serious consideration. In conclusion, I should like to say that, whatever minor criticisms we may make, we are absolutely certain that a step forward has been taken to provide a genuine
  684
  agricultural policy the like of which has not been seen in this country for many years past.
  Mr. PIKE: I rise, not as an agricultural representative, but as one who is extremely and definitely industrialist, and who represents people whose industrial success depends upon a successful agricultural policy. As the three preceding speakers have said, we have too long ignored the necessity for a successful agricultural industry in this country, and there was a great deal in the statement of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), that since 1880 or 1890 there has been a general tendency in this country to ignore completely the importance of agriculture as an industry producing staple products, and to place too much reliance on the ability of industry to see us through. I would remind hon. Members that the House has just assented to various Measures which to all intents and purposes have turned this country into a tariff country, and I would ask them to regard a successful agricultural industry as the necessary forerunner of a successful tariff policy. It is not possible to conceive that these various Measures can achieve ultimate success unless we can establish an agricultural industry that is successful from beginning to end, and I am convinced that without it we shall not get that economic security at home which is so necessary to the successful operation of a new fiscal policy such as we have adopted.
  Although the Minister has gone a great way in encouraging communities that have drifted from the rural to the industrial areas to go back to the rural areas, he has not, in my opinion, done a sufficient amount of work in that direction to warrant such a flow-back as would be necessary to a really successful agricultural industry. I realise that it is not easy to encourage industrial workers, or rather, those agricultural workers who have gone into industry, to return to agriculture, unless they can be offered the same amenities of life, or at least a reasonable social outlook after they have finished their daily task. Possibly some hon. Members do not think that the agricultural worker should want to enjoy himself after his daily toil as the industrial worker does, and possibly this is one of the reasons why such amenities have not been

  685
  provided for him. It is also suggested that the industrial worker cannot be expected to go back to agriculture unless he can go back on at least the same favourable terms of employment that he has been enjoying in industry. I do not for a moment believe that the time is yet ripe when the same wage levels can be enjoyed throughout agriculture that are enjoyed throughout industry, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind something that he can do. We are suffering from an unemployed army of over 2,000,000. In many cases during the last month, in my own constituency, steelworkers and ironworkers have said to me, "If I get a definite promise of two or three days' work on a farm, will it debar me from my right to enjoy the benefits to which I am entitled as an insured industrial worker for the remaining days for which, I sign? "At the moment the law does not provide for that contingency—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the law does not provide for that. I am afraid that legislation would be required in order to provide it, and we cannot discuss legislation in Committee of Supply.
  Mr. PIKE: I will not pursue that matter any further, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that there are numbers of men in the country to-day who are anxious to do agricultural work provided that their doing it will not jeopardise their position. To encourage that type of workers and others back to the land is going to be difficult, and we see that in this Estimate the educational grant for agriculture has fallen by £77,000. Naturally, that is owing to the financial position in which the country finds itself, but we cannot expect to get men back to the land and to get a successful agricultural industry if we take away the means of training these men up to a point of agricultural efficiency, and I sincerely hope that the Minister, as soon as the position justifies a turnover, will give back to the fund as much of this money as is available, so that every phase of agricultural education can go on and develop and assist in the production of a real live and efficient agricultural worker.
  686
  The question of barley has been raised, and it is of great importance to remember that the consumption of barley in one trade alone last year only represents 10,500,000 cwts, whereas the same industry in 1914 consumed no less than 15,500,000 cwts. That is not a decrease that has come about naturally. It has been forced upon the industry and, if it continues, it is likely to lead to the complete annihilation of that side of a very important product. The Report of His Majesty's Customs and Excise for 1929, the last available, contains an official table giving the materials used by the brewing industry, and it says that in 1928 10,500,000 cwts., in round figures, of malt were used. I believe 440 lbs. of barley make 336 lbs. of malt. It also says that 800,000 cwts. of rice and maize together, and no less than 20 per cent. of the total product, which is 1,800,000 cwts., of sugar were used. Each of these figures would show a great increase on those that I have quoted had the industry been allowed to remain in a more or less normal condition in respect of taxation. I believe that the moment you can relieve the brewing industry of its present burden, you will give a great impetus not only to the agricultural industry generally but especially to the barley, maize and sugar-producing branches. If we can do that, we surely should do everything in our power to see that nothing stands in the way of those branches being successful. The Minister mentioned the progress made towards the successful operation of the canning industry. We have great and; wonderful fruit gardens in this country, and until quite recently we were not taking advantage of them in the way we should. The canning industry is only a very small child at the moment, and, further assistance to fruit growers and, I will not say out-and-out Protection but measure which will involve guardianship for these fruit growers, will increase tremendously the potentialities of the great canning industry which is commencing in the fruit-growing districts.
  I should like to support the appeal that has been made for grants-in-aid for allotments. If the right hon. Gentleman ever comes to Sheffield, he will see that the city is surrounded by a mass of allotments. If he had come at this time of the year two or three years ago, he

  687
  would have seen a sight pleasing to his eye, every one of these allotments well kept, well manured, everything being done by the unemployed to make them real wealth-producing concerns. But to-day they do not look the same. The land is not being utilised to the same extent and, in consequence, those who own or rent them are having to pay an exorbitant price for their vegetables and they have not the same immediate occupation to attend to, because their allotments are not really a proposition worth consideration in view of the cuts in the grants. I would ask the Minister to restore them to the full at the earliest opportunity. It is better to have the unemployed usefully occupied on their allotments than to have them walking about the streets losing their sense of citizenship and their general outlook on the affairs of life. I believe much can be done in that respect even at this late stage of the Estimates. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is fully appreciated by the industrial areas in Yorkshire. I hope he will progress with the work and in due time will be able to come to the House with a still greater programme of achievements to his credit.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot, of course, join in the paeans of praise and thanksgiving to the right hon. Gentleman. I dissent from his Protectionist policy as strongly to-day as ever. I think it is rather early to talk about the tremendous results that have been accomplished. In the words of Mr. Asquith, it will be wise to "wait and see." I am not at all as sanguine as hon. Members opposite as to the results of this policy. I am not an agricultural labourer, but I spent a portion of my life in Queensland, and there I was an agricultural labourer, so I know a little bit about milking, ploughing, and harrowing and about potatoes, turnips, and pumpkins, and know a little of the hardship of working fairly long hours and getting precious little for it. I am often amused when I hear speeches by Members representing agricultural districts as if we who live in the towns have no sympathy whatever for those who work in the country. We have the greatest sympathy for them. They have been crushed not because of Free Trade,
  688
  not because of the want of tariffs, but solely because of the industrial revolution which turned this country into a country of factories.
  I am astonished at the ignorance with which hon. Members approach this subject. I sat in the Gallery years ago and heard the beginning of the controversy which has culminated in the events of the last six months, and every argument which has been used to-day was used then. But always there was this outstanding fact that, when this country was under Protection, the agricultural worker was in the most poverty stricken plight of all his history. I am entitled to give my experience of the men who were middle-aged and old when I was a boy, many of whom lived during the period of the "hungry 'forties." Those men told me of wages of 5s. and 6s. a week, and many of them with big families, and none of the advantages of being allowed to work overtime for themselves on allotments, in big gardens, and so on, that there have been in the last half century or so, and making up their wages in that way.
  I am not going to admit for a moment that any advantage that the farmer will get from any of the things that are being done for him to-day will be automatically shared with the labourer. I am quite certain that they are not being shared with the labourer unless the farmer is compelled to share them, and proof of that was given by my hon. Friend who opened the Debate from this side. No one has controverted his figures, because they are the official figures. Therefore, do not let us have any cant about the labourer going to be better off under these conditions. There is one other thing that few hon. and right hon. Members have taken the trouble to think about, and that is that in all probability, if agriculture comes to be an industry that will be a paying concern, it will be turned into a kind of factory organisation. You will not have it left un-rationalised and unorganised as it has been up to the present, but even under present conditions, with the advent of machinery, the Ford tractors, and the other mechanical appliances on farms, even in the case of dairies, things for milking, and so on, unquestionably you will get a bigger output with the employment of fewer men and women. You will

  689
  have exactly the same thing happening in this industry as has happened in every other, and all your dreams of getting multitudes more people to stay on the land or to go back to the land will vanish into thin air.
  Human society is up against a problem that neither tariffs, nor Free Trade, nor anything else that continues the competitive fight of man against man can solve, and you can look to some altogether different method and a different spirit. Thirty or more years ago I met that very great agriculturist, Sir Horace Plunkett, to whom the people of Ireland and this country owe a tremendous debt of gratitude. Sir Horace Plunkett converted many people in his lifetime to the principle that we are advocating here, the principle of co-operation, the principle of men coming together and sharing their gifts of brain-power and skill with one another, for the success not only of themselves, but of those with whom they cooperated. You talk about starting on a new road, with new hope and so on. You cut down education and research, but what built up agriculture in Denmark? In that country agriculture was simply bankrupt. The country was on the verge of ruin, but what brought it to what it is to-day and through a very terrible period of depression was the fact that both the Government and the people co-operated to pool their brains and their efforts and established the finest system of co-operative farming that there is anywhere in the world.
  10.0 p.m.
  The reason our people did not do it was that more money could be made by investing in factories and in oversea investments. About that there cannot be any dispute, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is really happy that the Government have cut down the grants for research and for education, whether he really thinks that agriculture has reached the limit of education and of research, that there is nothing more to discover, and that all the money that has been spent in the past in this way has been wasted. He knows very well that it has not been wasted, and he knows as well as I do that a very considerable amount more needs to be spent. Instead of congratulating him, I condole with him for being at the head of a Department that has been so ruthlessly hacked in
  690
  expenditure that is so absolutely necessary. To me, it is one of the scandals of this Debate that hon. and right hon. Members who stand up for agriculture have not thought it worth while, except in a very casual way, to protest against the cut in that expenditure.
  I want now to come to the question which has brought me mainly to my speech in this discussion, and that is the question referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) and the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Pike). The question of what to do with the unemployed is one of the most terrible for anyone who sits for an industrial area. I do not care whether you are a Tory, a Liberal, a Communist, or a Socialist, if you have any feeling in you at all, you cannot go into your division and face the young men and the middle-aged men who, day after day, wander aimlessly about the streets looking for the work that is not there. Before the War there was a period of unemployment relatively as bad as this, and that is a thing that I would like to impress upon those who are thinking about trade and industry. It is a little worse now than usual, but we have had these periods of unemployment and bad trade ever since I have known anything at all, and from 1900 onwards, just after the Boer War, we were in a very terrible plight indeed.
  There came to this country an American who believed that if you could get idle land and idle men brought together, a great deal of unemployment would be got rid of. Rich man as he was, and clever man as he was at business, he had forgotten that you could not really start a new industry of that kind in just the way that he first imagined, but he did see this, and the Society of Friends have seen it since, that if men who had no ordinary work could be found occupation in the waste places of the city where they lived, they would be able, not only to occupy their minds, but to grow a very considerable amount of food. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has in its archives the whole of the particulars of the Vacant Land Cultivation Society. For a number of years I was its chairman. I believe that the allotments at Sheffield mentioned by the hon. Member who has just spoken took their rise from our agitation,

  691
  when we were going about the country begging the people in the towns who had bits of land to let it rent free to the unemployed, who were to go on it and clear it, and, at the end, were to have whatever they produced. Here in London we regularly held an exhibition of vegetables, flowers and fruits, grown amid brick rubbish in the heart of London. Outside this House, at Millbank, the Church Army organised a whole set of gardens which must have produced thousands of pounds worth of food.
  During the War, that society, in the Metropolis and in other great towns, organised old people, young people and women. The Minister's Department has all the particulars of this. During the War many hundreds of tons of green-stuff were produced, without costing anyone anything except a few pence necessary to buy tools and seeds. Last year the Government, for the first time since the War—before the War they gave grants, and perhaps I am making a mistake and there have been grants since the War, but whether I am right or not is beside the point—a considerable sum was put in the Estimates to spend on seeds and tools, and so on. This year, there is no money in the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman says that voluntary effort is finding the necessary money and that the work will not suffer. I want to point out to him, if it is true that we are doing as much work as was done last year, that last year we did not a tithe, not a hundredth part, of what was necessary.
  I appeal to the Committee. We have the power, and if the hon. Member for Attercliffe and the hon. Member for Walsall will get their friends together, we will help them, of course, and will bring such pressure as is necessary on the Minister to get the necessary money grant. The Estimates are not enough. We want a bigger sum to be put in in order that not merely Walsall or Attercliffe, but London, will benefit. I am not asking that the sum should be given to an individual. This matter can be organised quite easily through a number of organisations in the various towns. My appeal is exactly the same as that of the hon. Member for Walsall. It is that we should prevent the demoralisation that comes to men who have abso-
  692
  lutely nothing to do. Last night His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was at Newcastle, and he said there a very true thing. He said that one can help people in small ways as well as in big ways, and that, instead of talking about the big things, we might talk about some of these smaller things and get them done. I ask the Minister whether he will not make a name for himself by his Department responding to the appeal of the Prince and doing what appears to be a very small thing—providing people all over the country with seeds, spades and forks, and stimulating those who are willing to give their time in organising the work.
  It is no use thinking that it can be done merely by private charity. You cannot raise sufficient money. I must not be told that there is not enough land. There are lots of building sites. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman will find the records in his Department, and I appeal to him to give attention, not only to what I am saying, but to what hon. Members on his own side have appealed to him to do. It would be a big piece of social work if it were done, and it would mean a great deal of effort, yet it would in many cases preserve men's self-respect and keep them in condition. I will tell the Committee another thing it would do: it would give the children in the homes a little more food. Obviously, what food was grown would be in addition to the money that the growers could get from the Employment Exchange. If there is any doubt about it, I can say to the Committee that in Woolwich there are a number of allotments, and that arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Labour, in reference to those allotments, by which the men who use them are not in any way penalised in regard to their Employment Exchange money.
  I know that people will say quite truly: "You are always telling us that what is needed is not more production but greater consumption." I plead guilty to that inconsistency. Consistency is not at the disposal of men. The land is there but it is shut off from the people. While we are living under these conditions, I have all my life said that we must do the best we can with the means that we have at our disposal. No one ought to gibe against me because I am apparently pleading something very contradictory.

  693
  I am mainly concerned about the welfare of men who are victims of unemployment and their women and children. This is such a tiny thing, yet, spread all over the country, it would be a Godsend to tens of thousands of people. I most earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to worry the Exchequer and get this money. I wish he would also get the money for education and research, but if he cannot get both, he should get the one I have spoken about, because— [Interruption.] Well, I am a moderate person and I will take whatever I can get. I do not believe that there is a right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman who, if he had the money, would not give it, because he knows what a splendid thing it would be. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he can get it.
  The only other thing I want to say is that I do not think agriculture can be organised on this form of protection that has won so much adulation to-night. I believe that agriculture must be reorganised from top to bottom and that the old individualistic idea of each farmer for himself living for himself is played out, and that you have to have a truly reorganised and rationalised form for agriculture in this country. Then you will produce on land whatever that land is fit to produce, and there shall be no charges upon the people who occupy the land or use it other than the necessary charges for carrying out their industry. Above all, there is no salvation for agriculture until the workers are treated as partners in the business of production.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The last speech was the twenty-sixth speech to which I have listened, and I must acknowledge at once the great kindness of the Committee in regard to the general tenor of the Debate. To anyone who, like myself, is charged with the supervision of a very complex Department, it is most encouraging to realise that there is a very genuine interest in the administration of the Department in all parts of the Committee. I have heard to-day at least two maiden speeches. They were the speeches of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Brigg Division (Captain Hunter), and I am sure that the House will welcome their inter-
  694
  vention in Debates in the future. May I also add that we are glad to welcome back the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. C. Duncan).
  The Debate has ranged over a very wide area, and the last thing I should wish to do would be to introduce into the discussion the slightest note of acerbity or the least expression which would raise any feeling. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) asked me whether I was quite happy about the economies which I had had to carry out. Anyone who gives a moment's thought to the situation in which we all find ourselves must be certain, whether it is the Minister administering a great Department of State, the business man, the farmer or the unemployed, that no one is happy at the economic condition of our country, or indeed of the world. But there are certain hard and patent facts which we cannot ride past, and one of them is, clearly, that whatever our hopes and aspirations may be either now or in the future, we must recognise, as I said in my opening remarks, that economy, not only in this great Department of State but in every other Department of State, is absolutely essential. In making those economies we have tried to deal fairly between the various interests concerned.
  Upon the question of agricultural education and research, about which a good deal has been said from a variety of points of view, I realise the great advantage which the agricultural community receives from agricultural research. I am very conscious also of the urgent necessity of directing research into those channels of inquiry which will result in the most practical effort and in being brought before the farming community translated into a simplicity of words of which the farming community can make use. For that reason I welcome the setting up in this country of the Agricultural Research Council. That body was set up under Royal Charter last October, and the council are now busily engaged in surveying the whole field of research and in visiting, and conferring with, the various institutions with the object of advising His Majesty's Government and the Ministry over which I preside as to the most effective method of taking

  695
  advantage of research. This problem of research is carried on in a great variety of institutions, and grants are being given from various sources. At the present time, when we are facing this very difficult period, it is right that we should ask ourselves, with the greatest of care, what is the most productive effort and where we can improve upon our existing methods.
  The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who opened the Debate from the Opposition side, seemed to think that our object was not to make full use of the organisation and improvement in marketing which comes in so closely with the problem of education and research. I can assure him that that is very far from being the ease. I am certain that if the farming community as a whole is going to reap the advantage of the results of the inquiry to which I have referred, or of the Commissions which we have set up dealing with milk and bacon, or if they are going to reap the fullest advantage from the Duties—whether they are approved in one quarter of the House and disapproved of in another— which are, in fact, stimulating activity and interest in the expansion of production, and if they are going to achieve the fullest results of those efforts, they must turn their minds more and more to the orderly marketing, the proper packing, and the presentation to the public in an attractive form of those articles which the public desire. I emphasise the fact that whether in agriculture or in industry we are just a trifle inclined to be a little self-satisfied with the particular lino on which we have been in the habit of proceeding. Just as in agriculture we have had to change from the kind of stock which we reared and put upon the market, so we must do in regard to our horticultural products.
  I was asked a question as to the Committee presided over by the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, and as to what has happened about his researches into the agricultural colleges. Unfortunately, like many other inquiries, that inquiry came at a time of great financial stringency. Be that as it may, we have tried fairly to distribute such moneys as we have and to maintain the structure not only at the great central colleges but in the more rural agricultural districts. I had great
  696
  pleasure in being able to continue those moneys which give facilities to the rural worker to get scholarships and to step from them into the actual rough and tumble of agricultural life. We have done that. I was also asked by one hon. Member, I think the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), about the extra grant which appears on the Vote for the Research Institute at Rome. Any of the extra money required there is due purely to the monetary situation and to the fact that payment had to be made in the equivalent of gold francs. There is, in fact, no extra money involved. That office, which is used by continental countries and supported by our Dominions overseas, has provided us with some of those statistics which one hon. Member has referred to as being of great value to agriculture. No doubt this kind of expenditure must be carefully watched and reviewed if necessary.
  The hon. Member for the Don Valley asked a question about the Royal Veterinary College. I am in great sympathy with the views expressed in many parts of the House as to the necessity of the Governments policy having within it some regard to the animal products of the country, and I can conceive of no service which can be of greater value to our live stock than a properly equipped veterinary education service. We all know the difficulties under which the service has been carried on and the great urgency of putting the Veterinary College in London in a proper condition. I regret very much that the financial situation forced me to say to those concerned in the rebuilding and development of this college that for the present I could not give them the grant which they had had promised, but I trust that this is merely a postponement; and it is a happy circumstance that they have in their hands at the moment enough funds of their own to make a beginning. Therefore, we can look forward to that being done.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the future administration which is required. We have set up commissions to deal with milk and bacon. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for the Don Valley say that he thought the personnel was not good. Let me say quite frankly that when I set out to find the personnel, particularly in the case of the commission on bacon, my right hon. Friend the

  697
  Secretary of State for Scotland and myself deliberately did not go to those who were directly immersed in the agricultural industry. We tried to find men of affairs, men who had a knowledge of business, and we selected accountants on both commissions. We took the advice and help of men who had been engaged in the reconstruction of other businesses; and I hope that all the industries concerned, the milk producer and the milk distributor, those engaged in the production of milk and dairy products, those engaged in the breeding of pigs and also those who are responsible for the curing of pigs, as well as the distributors of the finished product, will be ready to give their help and advice by oral or written evidence upon this problem. It is a matter of some urgency.
  10.30 p.m.
  I have been asked whether anything can be done to expedite matters. I think that in my experience in agriculture one of the things that has been very evident is that, whatever urgency there may be, we must exercise a measure of patience and common sense in these matters. I believe that we have before us a field of great possibilities. I think that we have to-day a great deal of good will both on the part of those who speak for the cities and on the part of those who are concerned with the countryside. Many hon. Members have expressed that feeling to-day and I look forward, therefore, with some hope to co-operation between these interests. Is it not true, fundamentally, that whatever these commissions may do, whatever Parliament may do, if there is good will between the various parties in the industries concerned, those industries can of themselves do a great deal to put their own houses in order and to facilitate progress? I believe that we shall see a very great measure of co-operation in this respect.
  A good many hon. Members have spoken about the difficulties, and it has been pointed out that we have helped the wheat grower and we have set up these commissions to deal with milk and bacon, and, it is asked, "What about barley"? Some hon. Members have said that a duty upon barley is not sufficient, but I would point out that that is not the last word in this problem. The opportunity is there, and the machine is
  698
  there for those who deal with these matters to bring their views before the tribunal which Parliament has set up for that purpose. I venture to say quite frankly to my hon. Friends who are disappointed with what has happened in regard to the beer duty—though that is outside the province with which I am dealing—that this is not a time in which the House could reasonably expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to upset his Budget. Again, I would say to my hon. Friends that they must exercise a little patience and common sense.
  The Leader of the Opposition addressed himself as other hon. Members have done to the problem of allotments. I am not an enemy of allotments or smallholdings, but once again I must be frank with the Committee and say that we are carrying on our Vote a very large sum which we are obliged to do, for smallholdings established after the War, and, while we are still operating these smallholdings through the local authorities, we are bound to have some regard to the question of cost. I calculate that we are going to increase our smallholdings during the year by something like 300 holdings. It may not appear to those who are enthusiastic about this question, that that is enough, but we are limited in this as in other matters by the stern facts of finance. I know the value of allotments because I have seen them working for a considerable period. The Committee will realise that when I first went into the National Government and bad to make those economies which I had to make, I was bound to have some regard to the major interests of agriculture as a whole. It may be true that this is a problem which affects the unemployed, but, if that is so, it is more a matter of unemployment than of agriculture pure and simple. In itself the provision of allotments is an excellent thing. It gives encouragement to the people, and is of great value.
  We had to find last year some £26,000, but I cannot find that amount this year. On the other hand, we have always placed at the disposal of bodies, like the Society of Friends, whose services are worthy of the highest praise, any help and advice which we can give them. I am happy to think that by a special grant given by that society and by public subscriptions they have been able to obtain sufficient funds to assist approximately about the

  699
  same number of men as were assisted last year, that is to say, 64,000. That shows that there are throughout the country people who are ready to help, and I believe that that is a good way and a sound method in which to proceed in this matter.
  I will conclude by saying a word on the question of the wages boards. I who come from across the Border have had to envisage and administer a system very different from that which I know in my own country. I am told that you cannot make these regulations in England without spending something like £37,000 upon inspectors, on allowances, and on committees with independent people presiding over them in order to settle these wage problems. Across the Border we have nothing of that kind. These things are arranged between the representatives of the men and the farmers without cost to the State. They are arranged after close co-operation with those who speak for the workers, men like Mr. Duncan, a friend of my own whom I am glad to have as a friend. They make their own bargains. Be that as it may, I in my present position have to administer the machine as I find it. We continue to make these allowances, and to have these committees, and we continue to keep our body of inspectors to investigate complaints. The only thing I have done is to do away with a special body of inspectors costing something like £5,000. If that is all the economy which that branch of this administration has had to suffer, and to suffer without any loss of efficiency, is it asking too much?
  Some hard things have been said to-night about farmers. I have read with great care from time to time reports of what has actually happened in these inquiries. In a great mass of these cases where it can be shown that not exactly the right remuneration has been paid, it is owing not to malice on the part of the farmer but to ignorance. Let the Committee observe that complaints are
  700
  made from the workers, of which a considerable portion are found to be without foundation, and if accusations are to be made against one side, it ought to be borne in mind that accusations have equally to be made on the other. For myself, I am not particularly concerned with that, because I am satisfied that any complaints which are made can be properly investigated in the present circumstances and with the staff available. If I were assured that the staff was not sufficient to carry out the duties which Parliament has imposed upon me, then obviously it would be my duty to deal with the position. But I am not going to say that I think there is any justification for that complaint; on the contrary, I believe there is none. This has been a very interesting Debate. I am sure that if, in a year's time, we see a development of some of the schemes to which we have set our hands, if we see a general improvement in the conditions of the country, then we shall be able to congratulate ourselves upon a brighter future for the industry in which we are all interested.
  Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,195,818, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (GRAVESEND AND ROCHESTER).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (GRAVESEND AND ROCHESTER).
  AVIATION (AFRICAN SERVICE).
  AVIATION (AFRICAN SERVICE).
  RASPBERRY CULTIVATION, SCOTLAND.
  RASPBERRY CULTIVATION, SCOTLAND.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  STUDENT TEACHERS, TRAINING COLLEGES.
  STUDENT TEACHERS, TRAINING COLLEGES.
  COAL INDUSTRY (IMPORTS, BELGIUM).
  COAL INDUSTRY (IMPORTS, BELGIUM).
  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.
  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (LOANS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (LOANS).
  STATE EMPLOYES (SALARIES).
  STATE EMPLOYES (SALARIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (MARGATE AND YEOVIL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—
Army and Air Force (Annual),
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Margate and Yeovil).
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

WHEAT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions for securing to growers of millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor.
1.—(1) If, in any cereal year, the ascertained average price of home-grown millable wheat is less than the standard price, every registered grower shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations or by-laws made thereunder, be entitled to receive from the Wheat Commission in respect of every hundredweight of such wheat of his own growing sold by him in that year, not being wheat harvested before the year nineteen hundred and thirty-two, a payment (hereinafter referred to as a "deficiency payment") representing, subject to the deduction to be
220
made under the provisions of this Act relating to administrative expenses, the difference (hereinafter referred to as the "price deficit") between the said average price and the standard price:
(5) If, within the period within which any wheat is required by an order made under this section to be bought, objection is made, in such manner as may be provided by the by-laws of the Wheat Commission, by or on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation, that any of that wheat—

(a) is not home-grown; or

(b) is not millable wheat; or

(c) is not of the quality according to which the price has been so determined as aforesaid;

then if it is determined by arbitration in accordance with the said by-laws that the wheat objected to is not home-grown mill-able wheat the order shall cease to have effect as respects that wheat, or if it is so determined that the wheat objected to, though home-grown millable wheat, is of lower quality than that according to which the price has been determined, the requirements of the order shall be deemed to be complied with as respects that wheat if it is bought by the corporation at such lower price as the arbitrator may allow.
(7) Any wheat of a registered grower's own growing, which is bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation in accordance with the requirements of an order made under this section, pursuant to a representation of the Wheat Commission, or which is forfeited to the Commission under the last foregoing subsection, shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section to have been sold by that grower in the cereal year in which the representation of the Commission was made.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "millable" [home-grown millable wheat]. The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment because I want to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill two questions. In the first place I want to ask him why it is that the benefits and advantages of this Bill are to be limited to growers of millable wheat; and, secondly, why, if the Government propose to limit the people who are to receive these pecuniary benefits, they have not included in the Bill a definition of millable wheat. Originally the movement on which this Bill is based was very largely a patriotic one—namely, that in support of an all-British loaf—but as things have worked out we now know, as has been stated several times in another place, that most of the wheat is not going,

221
into bread at all but into biscuits or poultry food and other things. Therefore that particular point no longer stands good. It is no longer going to help the growers of wheat for the purpose of bread making. I notice that in another place someone who very often speaks for the National Farmers' Union said that there is no wheat to-day which is not millable, and the Minister for Agriculture stated, as is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that it is essential that someone should have power to define millable wheat. I suggest that if mill-able wheat is to be defined it is Parliament that ought to agree to that definition. Your Lordships will have gathered from Clause 19, page 25, that it is contemplated that there should be a definition of millable wheat and I wish to suggest to the Government that before we part company with this Bill it ought to include such a definition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("millable").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): The noble Viscount has asked us why this assistance should be limited to the growers of millable wheat. I think it is perfectly clear that if public money, or money provided at the expense of any portion of the community, is to be expended in the way suggested in this Bill, it should be given only to those growers who produce really good quality produce. I should have thought that the noble Viscount, with his ideas of agriculture, would have been the very first to agree with the Government on that point. His second point is why this question of definition is left to a regulation instead of being settled by Parliament. The definition of wheat, as to whether it is "millable" or not, is obviously a very technical question, and it may well be that even when the definition has been settled it may have to be altered at a later stage. It is a definition which we may probably arrive at by experiment, and therefore it is most desirable that such a matter should be in a regulation which, if necessary, can be altered without reference to Parliament. For that reason I ask you to leave the word "millable" in the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word upon this point? I do not think the noble Earl opposite answered in any way the complaint of the noble Viscount who raised the question, as to whether there was any such stuff as unmillable wheat, or whether all wheat is millable, and the definition therefore, so far from being one which includes or excludes, is really a matter of supererogation altogether. If it is a matter of importance (and I understand the noble Earl to think it is) surely it ought to be defined now. I admit I am against all bread taxation in every form, but if we a-re to have it it is well to know what we are dealing with in a Bill of this kind. At the present time nobody can have any notion. It will depend upon some definition to be made on a subsequent occasion. Ought not the House to know what is the subject matter of a Bill of this kind?
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord says all wheat is millable. Would he suggest that all wheat grown last year, in the weather which we experienced in this country, was millable? Would he suggest that unripe wheat, dirty, damp, and musty wheat, was millable? We all know that such wheat was not millable. On the point of the noble Lord that a question such as this should come before Parliament, may I point out that in Clause 17 it is provided that all regulations made by the Minister shall come before Parliament?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next five Amendments are either drafting or consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 27, after ("year") insert ("in which the representation was made")
Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("force") to the end of line 32
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("subsection") to ("in") in line 35
Page 3, line 2, after ("wheat") insert ("to be")
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("Any such order shall also specify the period within which the wheat to which the order relates is to be bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation, and that corporation shall take delivery thereof within that period").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (5), after "bought," to insert "or within such further time as the Wheat Commission may, on the application of the corporation made within that period, allow." The noble Earl said: This is a minor Amendment, designed to make it possible for the Wheat Commission to extend the time during which objections as to the nature and quality of wheat offered to the Flour Millers' Corporation under a compulsory purchase roder may be made by the corporation.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("bought") insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next four Amendments are consequential or drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 32, after ("buying") insert ("and taking delivery of")
Page 4, line 4, after ("sell") insert ("and deliver")
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("upon judgment being") and insert ("becoming payable under a judgment")
Page 4, line 25, leave out from ("section") to ("or") in line 26."—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "subsection (1) of this section to have been sold by that grower in the cereal year in which the representation of the Commission was made," and to insert "subsections (1) and (2) of this section to have been sold by that grower on the date on which the order came into force." The noble Earl said: This is in order to remove any doubt as to what is to be taken to be the date of sale for the purposes of subsection (2) of the clause in a case arising out of a compulsory purchase order.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out from the first ("of") to the end of line 30, and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Determination of "ascertained average price," ''standard price" and ''anticipated supply" of home-grown millable wheat.
2.—(1) As soon as practicable after the cereal year ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and after the end of every subsequent cereal year the Minister shall, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, by order prescribe the price which he determines to have been the average price obtained by registered growers throughout the United Kingdom for home-grown millable wheat of their own growing sold by them in that year; and in this Act the expression "ascertained average price" means, in relation to any cereal year, the price so prescribed as respects that year.
(2) In this Act the expression "standard price" means the price of ten shillings per hundredweight:
Provided that, not later than the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the Minister shall appoint a committee of three persons, who, after considering general economic conditions and the conditions affecting the agricultural industry, shall report to the Minister as to the desirability of making any alteration in the standard price, and if that committee make to the Minister a recommendation that the standard price should be altered, the Minister may by order substitute for the price aforesaid, as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, such price as may be specified in the order, but the order shall be provisional only and shall have no effect until confirmed by Parliament.
(3) The Minister shall, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, by order prescribe at or as soon as practicable after the beginning of every cereal year, the quantity of home-grown millable wheat of their own growing which he anticipates will be sold by registered growers during that year, and any such order made with respect to any cereal year may be varied by a subsequent order made in like manner before the end of the month of January in that cereal year; and, subject as hereinafter provided, in this Act the expression "anticipated supply" means in relation to any cereal year, the quantity so prescribed with respect to that year by the order for the time being in force:
Provided that—
(a) if the quantity of home-grown millable wheat prescribed under this subsection in relation to any cereal year exceeds twenty-seven million hundred-weights, the anticipated supply shall, except for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section one of this Act, be taken to be twenty-seven million hundred-weights;
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) The order made under the last foregoing subsection as respects any cereal year shall also contain a certificate by the Minister certifying the quantity of home-grown millable wheat of their own growing sold by registered growers in that year, and for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section one of this Act, that certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the quantity aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to be inserted because it is obviously desirable for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 1 that the quantity of home-grown millable wheat of their own growing sold by registered growers in any year should be conclusively certified, and the necessary information will be possessed only by the Minister and the Wheat Commission. As the information required will always be wanted at the same time as information as to the ascertained average price, it is thought that it will be convenient to have the certificate embodied in the order prescribing the "ascertained average price."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Does this mean that the farmer has to make a separate return to the Minister?
EARL DE LA WARR: No. It is exactly the opposite—that the whole thing should be embodied in one.
On Question, Amendment a-greed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the price of ten shillings per hundredweight" and to insert:

"(a) in relation to the cereal year ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the price of ten shillings per hundredweight;

(b) in relation to each of the two next succeeding cereal years, a price per hundredweight less by two and two-thirds pence than the standard price applicable to the preceding cereal year;

(c) in relation to the cereal year ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and each subsequent cereal year, the price of nine shillings and fourpence per hundredweight."

The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment of considerable substance and importance. Its aim and object is to help to cheapen the production of
226
wheat, to try to get away from what I think is one of the real dangers of this Bill—namely, having a permanent subsidy, and also to assist what is called the "change over" to other forms of agriculture than wheat growing, so that ultimately, if this Amendment were carried, we could look forward to having wheat growers who are able to stand on their own legs without subsidy because they could produce wheat economically, or farmers who were going in for some other branch of agriculture than wheat growing. The other day on Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, when we were discussing this question of change-over to mechanisation, that is to say, from expensive wheat production to cheap wheat production, pointed out, quite rightly and accurately, that one of the difficulties of farmers to-day was their shortage of capital. The words he used were—
"… the farmer who at present is growing wheat by uneconomic methods…is probably a man who has not the capital to enable him to get the equipment necessary to turn over to other methods."
One of the objects of the Amendment is to provide the necessary capital to enable that man to buy machinery so as to produce wheat more economically, and in that way get away from having to depend upon a subsidy for longer than is absolutely necessary.
I do want to suggest to the noble Earl that there is a very real danger, unless we do something like this, of finding ourselves with a large number of farmers who can grow wheat at 45 s. and at no lower figure than that, and who, if it were not for the prospect of this Bill being continued indefinitely, would have turned over to other branches of agriculture. I think if that were to happen we might find that we had landed the country with a very large and unnecessary expenditure, going on for quite an indefinite period of time. I will try to explain the purpose of the Amendment. The wording is scattered over several clauses, but I do not apologise for that, because nothing connected with this Bill could be more complicated than the Bill itself. Under the Bill as drafted money is collected into a central fund making something like £6,000,000 available for distribution to registered growers of wheat. In my Amendment I propose

227
to create another fund, so that the money should not be available only for people who are growing wheat, as they are now doing very often, by expensive methods, but should be available for the other purposes which I have indicated. Later you will find on page 7 of the Marshalled List of Amendments a consequential Amendment. I have put down a new clause there, providing for an Agricultural Development Fund, and on page 8 you will find that there is another new clause, which would follow if we accept the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. That second new clause explains the purpose which I have in mind. Under that new clause the Development Commissioners could make capital grants to persons for the purpose of defraying capital expenditure.
I ought in the drafting of this clause to have limited the operation to registered growers; that is to say, the people I wish to include are registered wheat growers who either want to buy machinery or want to turn over to another branch of agriculture. I do not propose that it shall be possible for the Development Commissioners to give any of this money to a purely grass farmer who wants to build a new cow-house. I want as far as possible to limit the money to the registered growers; that is to say, to those who would otherwise be getting the full benefit under the Bill as now drafted. The result of the Amendments taken as a whole would be that the 45 s. guarantee—I use that expression for short—would be reduced over a period of three years by 1s. a year. The money so saved would be put into the Development Fund. That Development Fund would be used by the Development Commissioners either for assisting a farmer to mechanise or to change over to some other branch of agriculture if he felt that he wished to give up wheat growing for any reason. There will be no extra charge to anybody and no extra cost if my Amendment is carried, nor would the money go to anybody who would not be entitled under the Bill as drafted to get some benefit or advantage.
One great advantage of the Amendment, as I see it, is that we should get away from what is going to be a real danger in three or six years time, the danger of finding a lot of new vested interests—people who are getting a sub-
228
sidy from the Government, who have been induced to put their energies, their capital and their time into growing wheat and who cannot grow wheat profitably at less than 45 s. There are many others who can grow it at a very much lower figure and I will come to them in a moment. I am dealing now with a number of people who will be induced to grow wheat and can only grow it at 45 s. As I say, there will be a very real danger in three years time of pressure being brought to bear on Members of Parliament to continue this subsidy and not to let it end. Already I notice it is reported in the Press that a Member of Parliament who sits for an arable area has said, in talking to his constituents, that he was doing his best to see that the guaranteed figure was not too low. I cannot imagine anything worse than to have rival candidates trying to get the support of the voters in a constituency by promising to continue this subsidy or even to increase it. That is a very bad and dangerous principle, I think.
The noble Earl might raise the objection that if the guaranteed price were to be reduced by 1s. a year for the first three years—from 45 s. to 44 s. and 43 s. —some wheat growers might be getting a smaller benefit or advantage than if there was a flat-rate figure, or that some of them might not be getting any benefit at all at the end of three years owing to the existence of what is called the four-course rotation. My answer is that already under the Bill as it is drafted and is going to operate there is no real principle under which this money is to be distributed. It will be given in unequal amounts to different people up and down the country. Some will get large sums of money, others will get small sums of money. Therefore, the fact of reducing the guaranteed price from 45 s. to 44 s. ought not to carry weight with your Lordships.
I noticed the other day that one of the noble Earl's late colleagues in the Labour Government indicated that if Dr. Addison had brought in a Wheat Quota Bill a year ago there would have been a diminishing figure and not a flat-rate figure; so that the noble Earl would then have been defending and justifying the Amendment I am now asking him to accept. I hope very much that some-

229
thing on these lines will be agreed to. I want to repeat what I said the other day, that one mandate which this Government and this Parliament received after the last Election was not to be wasteful or extravagant or to indulge in any unnecessary expenditure. More than half the money which is to be expended under the Bill before your Lordships is going to people to whom the Government does not want it to go; that is to say, something like £2,000,000 to £3,000,000—assunting the full expenditure of £4,000,000 to £6,000,000—will go to farmers to whom the Government does not want it to go. I base that statement on the assumption that the intention of the Government is only to give a fair and reasonable profit to those farmers who can only grow wheat at 45 s. If that is the aim of the Government, it is obvious that a large number of other people will get money under the Bill. Take, for instance, the poultry keepers who grow wheat and who make a profit now on the wheat they grow. Twenty-two per cent. of the wheat grown in this country never leaves the farm at all. Most of it, I imagine, goes to poultry. The poultry farmers are making a profit now. Under the Bill as drafted those poultry keepers will get an additional bonus, a second profit, and that is to be given them at the public expense.
Then there is the case of those farmers who grow wheat because they want straw, dairy farmers or farmers who are near racing stables and have a good market for straw at a high figure, or those who sell straw for box making. They are already making a profit. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, queried my statement the other day that dairy farmers had been making money. During the last few years it is milk production which hits pulled farming through. There has been a steady increase in the cow population. That shows that milk production on the whole has been profitable, and dairy farmers are already making a profit by the sale of their milk. We must not base our attitude on whether they are making a profit to-day, but taking the year as a whole dairy farmers are going to get an additional bonus, a second profit, and the public are to be compelled by the Government under this Bill, in spite of
230
the pledge of economy, to give those farmers an additional bonus, a second profit, although they are not asking for it. They will not mind it, many of them, but they are not putting up, and they have not put up, an unanswerable case for a second profit or bonus.
There is also a third group of farmers, those who are producing wheat at considerably less than 45 s. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, will accept my statement that there are many farmers who are and have been producing wheat at a profit at a much lower figure than 45 s. If he does not accept it I am afraid I shall have to quote a large number of documents concerning inquiries conducted by Leeds University, Cambridge University, and Oxford University. I will quote his own Chief—
EARL DE LA WARR: I will accept it front the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Then I will only make one quotation. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking on March 16, said that it was possible to grow wheat at 6s. a cwt which, I believe, is about 27 s. a quarter. I have looked into many of the costings that I referred to just now and I find that 45 s. is an average figure between what are generally taken to be the two extremes of 20 s. and 70 s. If 45 s. is the average figure, it is obvious that there must be a large number of farmers who are producing wheat at less than 45 s. and down to 20 s. and are making a bigger profit than the Government or than Parliament wants to give them. That is to say that the Bill is again going to compel the public to pay out of its pocket an unnecessarily large profit to a certain section of wheat growers. Those two sections I have referred to—the farmers who grow wheat for straw and the farmers who are able to grow wheat at a very much lower figure than 45 s.—would represent something like 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the farmers who are to get a benefit under the Wheat Bill. I have given those figures because I want to substantiate the statement I made just now that more than half the money—that is, from £2,000,000 to, £3,000,000—which is to be paid under this Bill is going to be an unnecessary expenditure of public money. It is to go to people to whom the Government is not trying to give this extra bonus.

231
It has been found—I am not surprised —impossible to make this a water-tight scheme. I suggest to your Lordships that it is very serious in these days of national economy, when we have had to make serious cuts in the pay of civil servants, police and teachers, that we should be going to spend from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 unnecessarily. That is to be the effect of the Bill, and I appeal to the Government to give favourable consideration to the Amendment, because it will help farmers to mechanise; and it will enable those who want in whole or in part to give up wheat growing to turn to other branches of agriculture by giving them a capital grant for equipment as indicated in the new clause of mine on page 8 of the Marshalled List. It will, without any further expense to the public, do this and at the same time bring the operation of this very expensive Bill to a reasonably short close. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("the price of ten shillings per hundredweight") and insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD BAYFORD: I object to this Amendment on more grounds than one. Its object seems to be to restrict the number of people who are likely to grow wheat if the Bill becomes law. Speaking as one who comes from a part of the country where wheat is very little grown, I can only say that this is just what we object to. We want as many people to grow wheat as possible, because we do not want them to compete with us by engaging in the dairy trade. The only reason why in the West Country this Bill is, well, not unpopular, is that in the last two years, in spite of all the noble Viscount says, very few people have been growing wheat at a profit, more and more have turned their attention to milk, and the competition has been so great that for a considerable period, at all events, milk in the West Country has been produced at a loss. That is why, on the merits of the Amendment, I object to it. The other reason I object to it is a technical one. The noble Viscount proposes that instead of the money being devoted to this form of subsidy to wheat it should be devoted to a scheme of development for kindred but separate branches of agriculture. If the noble Viscount will look at the title of the Bill he will see that that is altogether outside the scope of
232
the Bill. I am not so well acquainted with the Rules of Order in this House as I am with those in another place, but, whatever may be possible here, I can assure the noble Viscount that if the Bill with the Amendment he proposes goes back to the House of Commons it would not only, perhaps, be considered undesirable, but by the Rules of Order of that House, it would be really impossible to retain his Amendment in the Bill. Therefore it seems to me that the Amendment is both undesirable and impracticable.
EARL DE LA WARR: I, too, hope that your Lordships will not pass this Amendment and the Amendments that are consequential upon it. The desire of the Government in the policy that they have adopted is to give to arable agriculture a period of definite stability. We have chosen that period as one of three years. The noble Viscount suggests that this price should operate only for one year and should then be decreased. Those who are connected with the land know perfectly well that one year in dealing with land is nothing, and that if you want to pursue any policy at all to talk of pursuing it for one year only is folly. The noble Viscount suggests that the scheme, about which we have all heard so much but which only a few of us have seen, of the late Government and which he said I supported, included a declining price. I am not at liberty to discuss that point except to say that if the price arranged in this Bill had been for a very much longer period, as it might conceivably have been intended in this hypothetical document, then there might have been a case during the last few years of the period for having a decline in price on the lines the noble Viscount suggests. For example, if it had been for a seven-year period then you could have had the three-year certainty, which we have in this Bill, and you could thereafter have had a decline in price if that had been so desired.
The noble Viscount may ask: Why not fix your price for a period of seven years instead of three? I think the answer to that is very clear. Nobody would at present venture to put into an Act of Parliament a fixed price in terms of money for a long period, because to do that would be to commit a very foolish act. Who is to know in the existing state of things what the value of 45 s. or 35 s. or 40 s.—whichever

233
the noble Viscount wants—is going to be after a few years, or even, possibly, a shorter period? Our purpose in this Bill is to give stability to a certain amount of arable agriculture. How have we tried to arrive at that basis? This Bill is, as you may say, a form of subsidy to the wheat grower. We felt that assistance to the wheat grower was justifiable, because we saw that there was a certain large area of agriculture in England which could not carry on its business unless it was given a secure market and a guaranteed price for one of its main products, wheat. How did we try to arrive at the area which we would be justified in assisting on those grounds? We made extensive inquiries amongst our economic advisers throughout the country, and we also took certain figures relating to the past, and we found that whereas at present we were cultivating 1,250,000 acres of wheat, our Bill, by providing a limitation of 6,000,000 quarters, secures an acreage of 1,800,000 acres. In 1909–1913 the acreage was 1,850,000 and in the years 1901–5 it was, I think, 1,400,000. During and after the War it mounted up to over 2,000,000. Taking those figures, we felt safe in assuming that the central figure was about the figure which we would be justified in taking, and in that we were further strengthened by our inquiries.
Then we made inquiries as to the approximate price which would enable us to maintain that acreage. Even on the figures which the noble Viscount threatened to quote from Oxford and other centres it was admitted that the deficit on the present price of wheat was about 15 s. a quarter or £3 an acre. Those were the Oxford University figures. Actually we are paying according to the world price to-day a premium of between 15 s. and 18 s. That is how we arrived at our conclusions and we felt that our reasons for arriving at those conclusions were sufficient to justify us in giving the wheat grower complete security of market and price for at least three years. We do meet the point of the noble Viscount thoroughly and completely by saying that after that period there shall be a committee appointed to reconsider the question of price. We have considered this matter very thoroughly and I think we have met the main contention of the
234
noble Viscount that we should not be permanently committed to this price. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to insert the Amendment.
LORD OLIVIER: I think the chief general objection to this proposal is that it is much too elaborate, speculative and far-reaching. You cannot tell whether in two or three years time the proposal of the noble Viscount would have the effect of making more people who want to go in for cow-keeping increase their capital or whether it would not. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has rightly said, you do not know enough about the future to embark on a large development for that purpose. That, I should say, is the main Parliamentary objection to the Amendment, but there is also a practical objection on the ground of the principle and purpose for which I, at any rate, support this Bill. We do definitely want to stop the rot in wheat growing in this country. There are a great many farms which are just on the balance between being given over to milk production and pig-keeping and growing wheat—farms which are perfectly well suited for growing wheat if a, decent and reasonable price can be obtained for wheat. I know of such farms myself, and farmers have told me: "If I could get a decent price for wheat I could get along, but now all the profit I make from milk is taken from me as I must go on growing wheat for straw and other purposes and because it is useful for the pigs."
We want to preserve wheat growing. I am rather a fanatic over wheat, just as I am over sugar cane. It is a noble crop. I was planting wheat probably before any of your Lordships, because at eight years of age I dibbled a three-acre field with wheat under a schoolmaster. I have worked with my hands on wheat and I have acquired a childish enthusiasm for it. I certainly believe, as I think most of your Lordships do, that it is a noble and useful farm-crop, and we do not want to see it crushed out by a temporary fall in price. It is to tide over that temporary fall in price that three years has been fixed, and I think it would be a mistake to try to tinker with that provision in the Bill for the purpose of some progressive, policy when we do not know whether that policy can be carried out.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I rise to express a certain degree of sympathy with the object of the noble Viscount. I am not in favour of opposing a Bill which merely encourages the wheat-grower, but in so far as the noble Viscount's ideas extend beyond wheat growing to the far more important live-stock industry I cannot help feeling that the expression of those ideas is a corrective which is very necessary to the capricious and sectional application of Government aid to agriculture. I am afraid that I should be out of order if I expanded my views on that subject, but it is for that reason that I rise to express sympathy to that extent with the noble Viscount's Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I deal with one or two points which have been raised in this interesting discussion? The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, spoke as if those of us who support a live-stock policy want to extinguish wheat. We do not want that at all. What we do feel is that wheat growing should be carried on economically and that if wheat cannot be grown economically then the land should be used for other purposes. As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, the difficulty there is that some farmers seem to think that the amount of money which the public is prepared to spend on agriculture is unlimited. I am afraid it is not. And if it is not unlimited then we must not spend an excessive amount on one branch of the industry because the more we spend in that way the less we shall have to spend on the livestock branch and other branches of the industry. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, would be prepared to accept part of the Amendment—that is to say, to make a certain amount of money available for providing capital for mechanisation. As I indicated just now the people who would derive benefit under my full Amendment would be exactly the same people; that is, registered wheat growers. If the noble Earl does not want to enable them to change over to other forms of agriculture I should be prepared to drop that part of the Amendment, but, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said the other day, that there are a considerable number of wheat growers who would like to mechanise but cannot do so because they are short of capital, I wonder whether
236
the noble Earl would accept part of my Amendment?
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid that what the noble Viscount suggests would be outside the scope of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has said. If he will read the short title of the Bill I think he will see that it is quite out of the question. I think I must say also that it would undoubtedly be an Amendment which would conflict with Privilege, because it deals with money raised and to be expended by a State body. I am quite sure that the view of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is in charge of the House, and who has so much respect for the Privileges of the House of Commons, would certainly be that such an Amendment would be quite out of the question. If it were inserted the House of Commons would probably raise the question of Privilege. On both those grounds, even if the Government were willing, I am afraid the Amendment cannot be accepted.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not want to be misunderstood. I was merely referring to a modification which would enable a farmer to get machinery for wheat growing. I do not think that would be outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Yes.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: When it is machinery for wheat growing?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Yes. Surely the title of the Bill shows that it is to provide a certain amount of money to enable people to grow wheat at a decent price, and not to provide them with money to buy machinery. I do not think myself that it is an Amendment which would infringe Privilege, because it would not increase the charge—it is part of a charge which has already been passed by the other House—but that it is outside the scope of the Bill is certain. At any rate it would be certain in the House of Commons. Whether it is so here I do not know, because you can do what you like in this place.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice of a further Amendment in subsection (2), to leave out "the price of ten shillings per hundredweight" and insert:

237
"(a) in relation to the several cereal years ending respectively on the thirty-first day of July, in the years nineteen hundred and thirty-three, nineteen hundred and thirty-four and nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the price of ten shillings per hundredweight; and
(b) in relation to the several cereal years ending respectively on the thirty-first day of July in the years nineteen hundred and thirty-six, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, the price of seven shillings and nine and one-third pence per hundredweight."
The noble Viscount said: The intention of this Amendment is to guarantee wheat growers against excessive loss when the bottom drops out of the world wheat market. On the Second Reading I said I thought the Bill contained a very dangerous principle—namely, that Government or Parliament should guarantee to an industry a perpetual profit. I would like to repeat that I consider it to be a very dangerous principle. British industry has grown up and developed because it was prepared to take risks. It did not ask to be guaranteed a profit by Parliament whatever happened in the world. In 1922 and 1923 and in 1930 and 1931 the world price of wheat dropped very much more heavily than the price of general commodities and this Amendment attempts to link up the price of wheat with the price of world commodities. If the Amendment were carried it means that there would be a guarantee of 35 s. That would enable some growers to make a profit, but the intention is to guarantee growers against excessive loss, which is a much more defensible principle, when the world price dropped more than the price of general commodities. That is the object of my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has been put down in a somewhat confusing way. I shall put the question, not to leave out "the price of ten shillings per hundredweight," as your Lordships have already decided to leave them in, but to insert the words as printed on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Astor.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment will
238
know whether that will meet him, but it seems to me to make nonsense of the wording. I do not want to embarrass the noble Viscount, but I do not want him to do something which will result in nonsense.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I have had the same difficulty as the Government has had in drafting Amendments and that was why I indicated my object. If the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment we could deal with the drafting; if not there is no object in discussion.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think need trouble you with further argument on the merits of the point, as I have already tried to deal with it. I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to omit the proviso in subsection (2) and insert:
"Provided that, not later than the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the Minister shall appoint a committee of three persons, who, after considering general economic conditions and the conditions affecting the agricultural industry, shall report to the Minister as to the desirability of making any alteration in the standard price or the limitation of the 'anticipated supply,' and if that committee make to the Minister a recommendation that the standard price or the limitation of the 'anticipated supply' should be altered, the Minister may by order substitute for the price aforesaid, as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, such price or limitation of the 'anticipated supply' as may be specified in the order, but the order shall be provisional only and shall have no effect until confirmed by Parliament."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in reality a very simple one which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. As I pointed out on the Second Reading there appears to be no power in this Bill whereby in Committee any Minister or Government can ever again consider the question of the figure of the anticipated supply, the 6,000,000 quarters at which it stands. I and my friends have considered this and have wondered on what grounds this figure of 6,000,000 should be sacrosanct. We have come to the conclusion that there are two grounds. One is that it will prevent the growing of wheat on what is described as unsuitable ground and the

239
other that it will limit the amount of subsidy which the consumer is asked to give. My Amendment does not in any way conflict with those two objects, with which I entirely agree, and therefore I shall expect some other argument with which I am not at present conversant. In regard to the factor of increased acreage I do not anticipate that for a year there will be a greatly increased acreage. I was brought up under the system whereby white straw was grown two years out of four and I am conservative enough to think that there has not yet been a method which has improved on that, but it is certain that during the last few years farmers have been growing at least three white straw crops out of four years. I think most farmers will come back to the old practice and that though there will be a greater acreage under the plough, there will not be a greatly increased acreage under wheat.
The second method whereby the anticipated supply may be increased has been indicated by the noble Marquess—that is to say, that the very great quantity of corn now used for feeding will no longer be used for feeding, but will be sold and foreign corn substituted. The noble Viscount made use of a phrase on the Second Reading which in connection with agriculture struck me as somewhat peculiar. He talked about unwanted profit. I know a good many farmers and I have yet to meet a farmer who did not want a profit on any one of the commodities which he produced. I am certain that every farmer who feeds wheat will sow that wheat and it will therefore come on the anticipated supply and will be a cause of its increase. Further, there is the increased yield per acre. Farming in this country of wheat land has admittedly been going from bad to worse. It will now go from bad to better and each year it will improve. I venture to think that in three years time there may well be an increase of at least 50 per cent. on every acre of wheat that is grown.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said just now, I thought very wisely, "Who knows about the future?" He said: "Who can tell this, that or the other?" But in this particular matter he seems quite content that it should be quite absolute. Now may I suggest this as being a very likely event to happen? I think the world price of wheat is likely
240
to rise. Lord Stanhope said the other day that he felt certain it would rise, because, as he rightly said, people will not go on for ever growing wheat at a loss. Supposing it rises to 35 s. and the anticipated supply rises to 9,000,000 quarters. In that case the subsidy will be decreased by approximately half, while the price that the farmer gets will be decreased to approximately 41 s. 6d. A noble Lord said the other day that he anticipated wheat going down to 16 s. per quarter. If he is right the cost of the subsidy which the consumer pays will rise to approximately £9,000,000, which I think would be too much. Therefore it seems to me that someone should undoubtedly have the power, after all due precautions, to safeguard the consumer and the grower, to review this magic figure of the anticipated supply, and I think that putting some such power in the Bill could do nothing but improve it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 10 to 23 and insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: We hope that it will not be necessary to insert this Amendment, in spite of the powerful reasons that the noble Lord has placed before us. He quoted me as having said "Who knows about the future?" and he suggested that this uncertainty about the future was a reason for your Lordships to insert this Amendment. But when I said "Who knows about the future," I was talking about price, which is a factor that can be dealt with already under the terms of the Bill, and not about acreage. The price, after all, is very largely a question of comparatively temporary economic values, but acreage is far more a question of policy, and the noble Lord is quite wrong in saying, really, that this question, if it is dealt with as a matter of policy, cannot be altered in the future. Being a matter of Government policy it will have to be brought before the House, and if a real case is established for alteration it is open to the House to make it. What the noble Lord is really aiming at is to make it possible for a larger acreage to be in receipt of that sum of 45 s.
LORD CRANWORTH: I never said so.
EARL DE LA WARR: No, but the noble Lord wants it to be possible for

241
it to happen. That must be the purpose of his Amendment. Whereas it is only now possible for 6,000,000 quarters to be placed at the rate of 45 s., he wants it to be possible for the Committee to report that in future 7,000,000 quarters should receive that sum. In fact, even as the Bill is drafted that really is possible, for supposing it was desired by the Committee, and the proposal were adopted by the Government of the day, for say just under 8,000,000 quarters—the figure is 7,666,666 quarters—to receive the sum of 45 s., that can be done under the present drafting of the Bill by the price being fixed for three years at 50 s., because in the aggregate a larger sum would have to be distributed over a larger number of quarters, and he would achieve his aim. Similarly, at the present moment, if there were an increase in the amount of quarters grown to 7,666,666 quarters, then the wheat grower would under the existing arrangement receive 41 s. per quarter.
We say that it is very much better that you should not have two movable figures, as you have here in this Amendment, but have one kept on a standard basis, and we chose that one as a primary consideration of policy. What do we mean when we say a matter of policy? We think it comes down fairly bluntly to this—on what acreage or what number of quarters of wheat we are prepared to ask the consumer of bread in this country to pay a premium. After all we must realise, as the Minister said in another place, that for the first time for ninety years we have got the consumers in this country to accept the principle that they should pay a levy or tax upon this essential food stuff, and in the interests of the farmers, just as much as of the consumers, it is really not fair to try and extend that principle too much. If we do we are going to lose all that we have gained, and I suggest that in the interests of the farmer it is better to have a stable moderate scheme than lose the whole as we did a few years ago. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that he should not ask us to insert this Amendment—that the actual limit of acreage or of quarters in the Bill should remain a stable factor. As a question of policy the Government have decided that this is the acreage or number of quarters on which we can ask
242
the consumers to pay a premium, and if the Government in time to come, on the advice of this Committee, wish either to decrease or increase the standard price, they can do so.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not want my noble friend Lord Cranworth to think that I so misjudge the farmer as to believe that he objects to receiving a bonus. The noble Lord will find, if he turns up my speech, that I said it was the Government who were being compelled to give a profit they did not want to give; it was not the farmer who objected.
LORD CRANWORTH: I cannot say that I am really very much impressed by the reply of the noble Earl. I understood him to say that this was a, greedy gesture on the part of the wheat grower, which I had particularly avoided saying, because I entirely agree with him that the subsidy indicated at the present time should not be exceeded. Then he went on to say that there was machinery in the Bill whereby it could be exceeded. But, seeing that the feeling of the House is probably that this is a matter which would best be met on the lines which the noble Earl indicated, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE, on behalf of the Earl of Radnor, moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (3), to substitute "forty million hundredweights" for "twenty-seven million hundredweights." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to increase the maximum of the anticipated supply. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Cranworth will not agree with me in this respect. The insertion of the limit of 27,000,000 cwts. is apparently meant to prevent land unsuitable for wheat cultivation from being by this measure, in fact, so used. But I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, clearly indicated that 45 s. a quarter limited the growing of wheat to land suitable for that purpose. Therefore, I submit that this limitation which appears in the Bill is unnecessary. Surely the price which the farmer will receive for his crop will be the actual thing that will limit the supply, and

243
therefore an arbitrary figure of this sort is unnecessary and undesirable.
Under Clause 1 (1) if the actual amount of wheat grown exceeds the anticipated supply growers will not get all the deficiency payment. This may have peculiar importance if the limitation of the anticipated supply comes into operation. With a fixed price of 45 s. a farmer can with reasonable accuracy forecast whether he can profitably grow wheat; but if, as may be likely with such a low limit as that fixed in the Bill, producers can anticipate the possibility of receiving, not 45 s., but let us say 35 s. or 40 s., it will upset their calculations. This difficulty is likely to fall on the skilful and careful farmer through the action of the unskilful, and that result, I am sure, we would wish to avoid. Such a low limit as is fixed in the Bill will leave this country just as vulnerable as it is to-day to any possible combination of importers with a view to raising prices against us. The extension of the limit would at least be a step in the right direction towards a wheat production in this country which would give a certain measure of protection against such action.
It seems to me that if we want to rehabilitate the countryside and bring people back to the land and prosperity to agriculture we ought to take up this attitude that it does on the average cost 45 s. to grow a quarter of wheat of millable quality, and if anybody brings to the Commission a quarter of wheat of millable quality, whether it is above a certain maximum production or not, he should be entitled to receive that 45 s., because under the Bill, without this Amendment, if there was more than a certain amount of wheat grown then every quarter produced in the country would receive less—the excess over the statutory limit, as I understand, would be spread over the whole production. Therefore it is quite possible, indeed it is likely, that the farmer, instead of receiving 45 s., will, in fact, probably not receive more than 42 s. or 43 s. or 44 s. That may be right or wrong, but it does seem to me that if you say, as you do in this Bill, that it costs 45 s. on the average to produce a quarter of wheat, you ought then to ensure that whoever produced that quarter of wheat of millable quality should receive 45 s. From the point of view of national security we
244
should do what we can to extend the growing of wheat. We all remember during the War what dangers there were owing to the failure of our wheat ships to arrive in this country from overseas; and if we are going to whittle down the advantage to the farming interests under this Bill by inserting this provision, which will undoubtedly reduce the promised 45 s. to 42 s. or 43 s., we ought at any rate to consider the importance of an increased wheat supply in time of war, and not ignore it altogether, as it is ignored in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("twenty-seven") and insert ("forty").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment is on the same lines as the last one, but in a rather more dangerous form. I think, however, that the noble Lord was suffering from a misunderstanding when he implied in his speech that there was going to be no increase in wheat production under this Bill. Actually the figures are these. At present there are 1,250,000 acres under wheat, and the Bill provides for 1,800,000 acres, which is an increase of 550,000, or about 44 per cent. That is as much as the average of what I think we may assume to be a normal period, the five years leading up to the War. This figure of 40,000,000 cwts. represents an acreage, not of 1,800,000, which we are allowing for, but of 2,700,000—actually more than we ever had under wheat at the peak during the War.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: If the noble Earl tells me that the Amendment would give a price of 45 s. to more wheat than was produced during the war, I would not wish to trouble him or the Committee with any further discussion but would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Quota payments by millers and importers.
3.—(1) For the purpose of meeting the expenditure to be defrayed by the Wheat Commission under this Act, every miller and every importer of flour shall be liable to make to the Wheat Commission in respect of each hundredweight of his output of flour, a payment (hereinafter referred to as a "quota payment") …
Provided that a miller shall not be liable to make quota payments in respect of any hundredweight of his output which consists only of wheat meal delivered by him for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food …
EARL DE LA WARR moved EARL DE LA WARR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "consists" and insert "is, in accordance with the by-laws of the Wheat Commission, proved to the satisfaction of the Commission to consist." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really of a formal character. It is designed to place the procedure which is applicable to millers who claim exemption from liability for quota payment for wheat meal delivered as animal or poultry food on a uniform basis with the procedure applicable to provender millers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("consists") and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next three Amendments are drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("wheat")
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("Wheat")
Page 6, line 30, leave out ("wheal").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 6.— (Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("wheat").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
By-laws of the Wheat Commission.
4.—(1) The Wheat Commission shall have power to make by-laws for giving effect to the provisions of this Act but no such by-
246
laws shall come into force until they have been approved by order of the Minister.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by the last foregoing subsection, by-laws made under this section shall in particular provide—

(c) for the manner in which and the times at which claims for deficiency payments and for payments in advance are to be made in respect of wheat sold by any registered grower, and for all such claims being vouched for by certificates (hereinafter referred to as "wheat certificates") certifying, as respects each hundredweight of wheat in respect of which a claim is made,—

(iv) the name and address of the purchaser of the wheat or of his agent and of the person to whom or to whose order it was despatched on delivery and the date of such despatch;

(e) for securing that wheat certificates shall not be issued in respect of any wheat until that wheat has been despatched on delivery to or to the order of the person named in the certificate after sale by the registered grower.

(k) for securing that repayments in respect of flour exported or shipping as stores are made or allowed only upon satisfactory proof that quota payments have been duly made in respect of the flour and that the flour has been so exported or shipped;

VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (2), immediately before paragraph (a), to insert:
"(a) for the registration of land in the United Kingdom suitable for the growing of wheat, for the manner in which applications for such registration are to be made and heard and determined, for the removal from the register of any land which has ceased to be suitable for that purpose, and for the making and hearing and determination of appeals by persons aggrieved by any refusal to register land or the removal of land from the register;"
The noble Viscount said: This is a new point. The Amendment provides for the registration of so-called suitable wheat land. I am very doubtful whether you can take as a basis the definition of suitable wheat land which is, apparently, very frequently in the minds of people when they talk about wheat growing. I notice that when the Bill was first submitted to Parliament the explanatory Memorandum contained the phrase "land unsuitable for the crop" of

247
wheat; that is to say, the Minister of Agriculture contemplated that certain land could be definitely described as being unsuitable for wheat. I noticed also that the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in another place, said:
"It is not intended to encourage the extension of the cultivation of wheat to land unsuitable for that purpose."
He also said:
"The land which is still suited for the production of wheat should be used for that purpose."
That is to say, that the Minister of Agriculture and the Government apparently contemplated that it would be possible to describe certain land as being either suitable or unsuitable for the growing of wheat.
In a book published not very long ago the author indicated that in his opinion he would take the yield of bushels per acre as being an indication of whether land was or was not suitable for growing wheat. I think it is an entire fallacy to take the yield per acre as being in any way an indication whether land is or is not suitable for wheat growing. Your Lordships, with your knowledge of agriculture, I think will agree with me that the same farm, the same fields will either give a low or high yield of wheat according to the treatment of the land both in the year itself and it may be also a year or two years before. The same land, that is to say, may either have a high yield or a low yield. You may have two different fields or two different farms, one of them giving a low yield of bushels per acre though the wheat is being produced at a profit. You may take the other farm with a higher yield of bushels per acre, and yet the wheat there may be produced at a loss. It does not seem to me that you ought to describe land on which wheat is grown at a loss as being more suitable, though the yield may be higher, than land where the yield may be lower and yet the cost of production may be lower and, therefore, wheat is grown at a profit.
Apparently the Government believe that 1,800,000 acres represents the quantity of land which is suitable for wheat growing and that anything over and above that is land which is unsuitable. The Minister of Agriculture said that the limit of 6,000,000 quarters has been adopted and, therefore, it carries into effect the Gov-
248
ernment's intention not to encourage the extension of wheat cultivation to land unsuitable for the crop. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, was proposing to extend it just now. The Minister of Agriculture, according to his own statement, would consider the extension of wheat growing beyond the 1,800,000 acres as being an extension of wheat growing to land unsuitable for the purpose. It is obvious that, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of land in this country which have grown excellent wheat in the past and could grow excellent wheat to-day but are not growing wheat to-day. That land could not possibly be ruled out as being land unsuitable for the purpose. Some of the best grazing country in the Midlands used to produce excellent. wheat.
I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, used a far better definition the other day and expressed a far better idea of what was suitable wheat land in a speech he made and from which I would like to quote. He said:
"We are anxious to avoid farmers being encouraged to grow wheat on uneconomic land, and by uneconomic land I mean land Where, although wheat can be grown, it can only be grown at a high cost."
I agree with him entirely there. I think that the test whether land is suitable is whether or not wheat can be grown economically upon it. If the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, agrees with me about that definition, it seems to me that the case for the Bill is enormously weakened, because the Bill intends that wheat shall be grown on land where it will not be grown economically; that is to say, without a subsidy. It is because I wanted to raise this point that I placed the Amendment on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph (a).—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Viscount has really answered his own point, because he has made it clear that he realises that while it may be comparatively easy for the purpose of conversation and in one's own mind to define what land is suitable or unsuitable for wheat cultivation, it is impossible to define it to the extent of putting it into an Act of Parliament. If I attempted a definition in relation to this Bill, I should say that there is

249
certain land which in order to enable it to grow wheat would require a higher price for its products than the Government is prepared to ask the consumer to pay. But to attempt to put loosely constructed words like these into an Act of Parliament would land us I do not know where. I find the point put very clearly in an article I read the other day in the Nineteenth Century magazine for March, 1932, where, on page 320, the writer, after drawing attention to the difficulty of finding a watertight definition of suitable wheat land on which to base an Act of Parliament, said:
"It is impossible to devise a plan which will not plunge us into administrative quagmires and inevitable extravagance."
As the noble Viscount, a fervent supporter of National Government, was the writer of that article, and is asking the Government to insert this definition in its own Act of Parliament, I would ask him to withdraw that request, otherwise we might be plunged into administrative quagmires and inevitable extravagance, to use his own words.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I agree entirely with the noble Earl. I purposely put down this Amendment in order to indicate that the expressions used constantly, not only in the explanatory Memorandum but in speeches, really mean nothing. It was in the hope of persuading some supporters of the Bill not to use that expression that I put down the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (c) and insert:
"(iv) the name and address of the person to whom, or of the person to whose order, the wheat was despatched on delivery after sale by the registered grower, and the date of such despatch."
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (iv) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (e) and insert:
"(e) for securing that wheat certificates shall not be issued in respect of the sale of
250
any wheat by a registered grower until that wheat has been despatched on delivery to or to the order of the person named in the certificate."
The noble Earl said: This also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, leave out paragraph (e) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (k) and insert:
"(k) for the manner in which, and the times at which, applications for repayments in respect of flour exported or shipped as stores, or in respect of exported bread, are to be made."
The noble Earl said: This alteration is proposed because by-laws for the purpose mentioned in this subsection can be made under subsection (1) of Clause 4 without any necessity for special mention. It is, however, not quite so clear that the by-laws of the Wheat Commission under the general powers contained in Clause 4 (1) can be made to limit the time within which applications for repayment can be made. Therefore we ask your Lordships to insert the new paragraph (k).
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 37, leave out paragraph (k) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (m) to insert:
"(n) for prescribing the form or forms of contract for the sale of wheat".
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to protect the farmer in his dealings with a milling combine. There is an old story of a farmer on his deathbed asking a miller on his deathbed to ask his sons what commission they charged, and after various sons had said 1s. 8d. or 1s. 2d., or whatever the amount was, the last one said he took the whole and returned the sack. That may be an exaggeration, but it is a fact that when the miller means a big company, and when the farmer is an individual, in all probability the big company will have the better business men to make its negotiations, so I think there ought to be some sort of sealed patent contract which the parties to these sales of wheat under the terms of the Bill to the millers ought to

251
be asked to sign. This is not a very extensive Amendment, and I would put it to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that perhaps he might accept it. When I was sitting on the Benches opposite, and when he was conducting agricultural Bills with his usual ability in the last Parliament, I found occasionally that he was very amenable to arguments I brought forward, and did accept a good many. I hope that he will not show that the fact of his having changed from one Government to another has altered his good nature in that respect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, at end insert:
("(n) for prescribing the form or forms of contract for the sale of wheat").—(Lord Bayford.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I can assure the noble Lord that I, too, am most anxious that the unusual position of having a majority behind me shall not render me in any way adamant or uncompromising, but I do not think there is any case for compelling the Wheat Commission to make the by-law that the noble Lord suggests. Clause 4 does definitely give them the power to do so, and it may well be, as the noble Lord suggests, that it would be a good thing for the farmer if it was done, but up to now no representations at all have been made from any of the interests, including the farmers, asking that this by-law should be made compulsory. The noble Lord made one strong point, I thought, when he said that the farmer was acting as an individual and dealing with organisations of millers, but I would point out that we deal with that in Clause 16 where the farmer has the power to form an Agricultural Marketing Board by which he would be able to negotiate as an organisation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provisions as to Wheat Fund]:
EARL DE LA WARE: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 36, leave out from the second ("the") to the first ("that") in line 37 and insert ("revenue and expenditure of the Wheat Fund attributable to").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to Millers' Quota Fund.
(4) Any profits shown by the audited accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund to have been earned in any cereal year by the sale or disposal of any such stocks as aforesaid shall be distributed to millers in the same proportion as the output of each miller for that year bears to the aggregate output of all millers for that year; and any loss shown by the said accounts to have been incurred in any cereal year upon such sale or disposal as aforesaid shall be recoverable from millers in the like proportion.
In computing for the purposes of this subsection the output of a miller and the aggregate output of all millers there shall be excluded wheat-meal delivered by the miller or millers for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food, and any person holding a provender-miller's certificate certifying that he is exempt from liability to make quota payments during any period shall be deemed, for the purposes of this subsection not to have been a miller during that period.
(5) Without prejudice to any other remedy, any sum recoverable from or by the Flour Millers' Corporation under the last foregoing subsection may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR had on the Paper a series of Amendments to make subsection (4) read as follows:—
"Any profits shown by the audited accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund to have been earned by the sale or disposal of any such stocks bought in pursuance of any such order as aforesaid shall be distributed by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with the Flour Millers' Corporation, to millers in the same proportion as the output of each miller for the cereal year in which the order was made bears to the aggregate output of all millers for that year; and any loss shown by the said accounts to have been incurred upon such sale or disposal as aforesaid shall be recoverable, on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with that corporation, from millers in the like proportion."
The noble Earl said: It is not convenient to refer, as the Bill does at present, to profits and losses which are earned in a cereal year, because a compulsory purchasing order having been made, say in June or July, some of the profits or losses earned or incurred as a result of resale of the wheat would be

253
earned or incurred in the old cereal year and some may be earned or incurred in the new cereal year, and these Amendments, therefore, have been suggested in order that the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation may, subject to the regulations of the Minister, deal with this question on an accounting basis.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("earned") to ("by") in line 42
Page 14, line 42, after ("stocks") insert ("bought in pursuance of any such order")
Page 15, line 1, after ("distributed") insert ("by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with the Flour Millers' Corporation,")
Page 15, line 2, leave out ("that year") and insert ("the cereal year in which thy order was made")
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("in any cereal year")
Page 15, line 6, after ("recoverable") insert ("on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation by a person appointed by the Wheat Commission, after consultation with that corporation,").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (4), after "in the like proportion," to insert:
"(5) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the output of each miller for any cereal year, and the aggregate output of all millers for that year, shall be taken to be of such amounts respectively as may be specified in certificates issued by the Wheat Commission to the person appointed by them for the purposes of that subsection; and."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment and also of the Amendments to page 15, lines 1 and 6, which your Lordships have already passed, is to make proper provision for determination by an independent person, such as an accountant, who shall be appointed by the Wheat Commission after consultation with the Flour Millers' Corporation, of the amount due to or from each miller in respect of any profits or losses which the Flour Millers' Corporation may make in the disposal of unsold stocks of wheat that they may be required by an order of the Minister to purchase at the end of a cereal year. The profits or losses will be distributed amongst the millers in the proportion that their output of flour bears
254
to the aggregate output of all the millers. That, of course, means the ascertainment of trade figures which many of the millers may feel it desirable to have dealt with in a confidential manner. Therefore this Amendment and the Amendments which follow make provision for an independent man, such as an accountant, to have these figures delivered to him in order to assess each miller's share of the profit or loss under this clause and to deal with the matter in a way that will not reveal the miller's trade secrets. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: What I have said covers the next four Amendments on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("this") and insert ("that")
Page 15, line 10, leave out ("wheat")
Page 15, line 16, leave out ("this") and insert ("the said")
Page 15, line 19, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supplementary provisions as to deficiency payments]:
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"(4) Where a deficiency payment becomes payable in respect of the sale of any wheat, the person who was, or is deemed in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act to have been, the registered grower thereof at the date of the sale or, in the case of wheat required by an order of the Minister to be bought by the Flour Millers' Corporation, at the date on which the order came into force, shall be entitled to claim and receive the deficiency payment, notwithstanding that he may subsequently have ceased to be a registered grower."
The noble Earl said: Under the Bill as now printed there is a doubt whether a man in order to be entitled to claim a deficiency payment would not have to be a registered grower not only at the date of sale but also at the dates of claiming and receiving the deficiency payment. This Amendment is designed to make it clear that if a man goes out of business

255
or otherwise ceases to be a registered grower after the date of the transaction which gave rise to the deficiency payment he shall nevertheless have the right to that payment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Eart De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Provisions as to existing contracts]:
EARL DE LA WARR: The six Amendments to this clause standing in my name on the Paper are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 21, after ("if") insert ("any article wholly or partly consisting of, or manufactured from,")
Page 20, line 24, leave out ("flour") and insert ("article")
Page 20, line 32, after ("if") insert ("any article wholly or partly consisting of, or manufactured from,")
Page 20, line 35, leave out ("flour") and insert ("article")
Page 20, line 37, leave out ("flour") and insert ("article")
Page 20, line 40, after ("payable") insert ("in respect of that flour").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
Orders for prohibition, etc., of exportation of wheat offals.
".—(1) The Minister may at any time after consultation with the Wheat Commission by order—

(a) prohibit either wholly or partially the export from the United Kingdom of wheat offals; and

(b) prescribe the conditions, limitations or regulations subject to which such export shall be permitted.

(2) Any order made under the last foregoing subsection shall come into force at such date and remain in force for such period as shall be specified therein and any such order may be varied or revoked by any subsequent order made in like manner.
(3) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of any order made under this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds
256
or in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds.
(4) In this section the expression "wheat offals" means the residual products extracted from wheat as germ or for animal or poultry food."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is one of very considerable importance. I am aware that it may be held to be outside the scope of the Bill, but I would remind your Lordships that if it is your wish that this Amendment should be passed it would be perfectly easy on Report stage to change the title of the Bill in order to bring this Amendment within its scope if it is not already within it. I feel it right to say that this is not a hasty or ill-considered Amendment. It has been considered for months by the Central Landowners' Association—by their executive and by their council—and it has been unanimously approved by them. It has received the full assent of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and since this Amendment has been tabled I have received a communication from the National Farmers' Union that they have considered the Amendment in their full council and unanimously give their support to it. I therefore feel that at all events it must have something to commend it to your Lordships.
I think that all, or nearly all, the modern authorities on agriculture have said that the future of agriculture lies mainly in stock. Captain Hutchinson, Mr. Blundell and Lord Lymington in their recent works have stressed the point, and in your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and others have added their testimony to it. I would point out how important this particular Amendment is to stock breeders. There are, at the present time, roughly fifty million hundredweight of wheat feed used in this country. That is approximately equivalent to the total imports of maize into this country. It will be seen, therefore, that a rise or fall of £2 per ton in the cost of this feed means a loss or gain to farmers of £5,000,000, which is equivalent to the whole of the gain which they would obtain under the Bill as it stands at present. Since last September the price of bran has risen by £2 a ton and it stands at the present day at £2 a ton more than the price of whole wheat.
What is this export of wheat offals to which I refer in my Amendment? It is the export of offals milled from foreign wheat at the port and exported—where to? Exported to our closest competitors in the pig market. And at what price? It is exported at a price much lower than that at which the British farmer can get it from the same source. The millers are able to do this because there are bulk shipments. It is an economic proposition for them to export at that cheap rate, and who can blame them? It is perfectly legitimate business, a perfectly legitimate profit for them. It is a perfectly sound economic proposition. But I would ask your Lordships, if it be an economic proposition to the milling industry to gain some tens of thousands of pounds—it may be hundreds of thousands of pounds, for all I know—is it an economic proposition for this country that a much larger section of the population should suffer a loss of £5,000,000 in order that a smaller section should gain a profit, a legitimate profit, of so many thousands? Not for a moment do I blame the millers for this. To my mind they have behaved extremely well in regard to this Bill and have been helpful, as I think the noble Earl would agree, in every way. But I venture to say that the help which they get, their quid pro quo, should be greater help from flour rather than that they should be given this profit on the export of offals.
I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the reply of the Minister of Agriculture in another place when this subject was introduced there. I find that the Minister on March 1 said:
"There are, it appears, certain difficulties arising out of our commitments under international treaties. I have, however, received a written assurance from the Millers' Association that their executive committee undertake, so long as a duty is imposed on imported flour, to recommend to the members of the association, and to do their best to secure, that wheat-feed shall not be exported to any other foreign country except under licence to be issued by the association."
What does this show? I think it shows in the first place that the millers themselves are perfectly ready that the suggestion in this Amendment should be carried out. They proposed to do it themselves. It also shows that the Minister is remarkably vague on this question of treaties. He is as vague as
258
the farmers are and I venture to say that all the farmer knows about these treaties is that he presumes they bring some economic advantage to industry in some form, but that it is done at his expense and, further, that other nations seem to be much freer to leave these treaties when it suits them. The millers are perfectly ready to carry out the intentions of this Amendment, but if the millers have no power to enforce this prohibition at certain times it is human nature that they will either disregard them if it suits them or elect a new council which will not issue such instructions.
What are these treaties? I look to the noble Earl to do something to enlighten me on that point. I have done my best to find out what they are. I find that Mr. Runciman, replying in another place to Mr. James Duncan, who asked the date of the signing by this country of the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions, said:
"The Convention was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on November 8, 1927, and brought into force by a Protocol signed on December 20, 1929. It remains in force for five years from January 1, 1930, but any of the countries which still remain parties (namely, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway) may withdraw on June 30, 1932, or on the same date in 1933, or 1934."
It is therefore quite clear, I think, that if the Government really wish to extend the benefit of this measure to other than cereal growers they cannot be prevented by any treaty, or at any rate the treaty mentioned by Mr. Runciman. I hope very much that your Lordships will accept this Amendment. In my view it will double the good that this Bill is going to do and it will extend to all the rest of agriculture an equal benefit to that which is now conferred on one section only.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD TREOWEN: I sincerely hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment because I believe it will add enormously to the value of this Bill and do away with what at present is causing deep feeling against the Bill throughout the agricultural community. As the

259
noble Lord who moved the Amendment said just now, a large majority of the agriculturists of this country are engaged not in cereal growing, but in the breeding and feeding of stock. It is the most important question we have to deal with. We have always maintained the highest reputation for stock in the world and it is most important that the breeders and feeders of stock should have some real benefit from this Bill. At present they do not see where their profit is coming from. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill stated in an earlier part of our proceedings to-day that the object of the Government in introducing this Bill was to give to agriculture a period of definite stability. I am sure he meant that the Government intended to give equal stability to all branches of agriculture, to the live-stock producer as well as to the cereal grower, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend who moved this will insist upon the Amendment because I think it is of vital importance to the majority of the agricultural community and also of value to the reputation of the Government in bringing in the Bill.
LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM: The title of this Bill is:
"An Act to secure to growers of home grown millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor; to make provision for imposing on millers and importers of flour obligations to make payments calculated by reference to a quota of such wheat and as to the disposal of the moneys thereby received; to provide for such millers being required to purchase unsold stocks of such wheat; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
That seems to me to confine the Bill entirely to the purchase of wheat and the price to be given for it. I am aware that in this House the title could be altered and probably the Amendment of my noble friend might then be in order, but I am certain that in another place it could not be done because the title of the Bill is perfectly simple and clear and confines the Bill to the purchase of wheat and the price to be given for it. I quite agree with the noble Lord that something ought to be done for the owners of live stock, but that is a different question altogether. Does my noble friend wish to say by Act of Parliament to a man: "You have a certain article and you are not to sell it in any particular place"?
260
Though I hope something will be done for the other industries in agriculture, for the first reason that it is outside the scope of the Bill, and for the second that being an individualist I should be very sorry to see legislation introduced which prevented a man from doing the best he can with his own property, I must oppose the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: Lord Banbury is quite right when he says that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. At the same time we have to admit that the point which the noble Lord has raised is a point of vital importance to the live-stock side of the industry. All through their negotiations with the millers the Government have realised that point. It is perfectly true that at the present moment the Government have only a written assurance from the millers that they will do their best to secure that wheat offals shall not be exported to any foreign country, except under licence to be issued by the association, and some of your Lordships may feel that a written assurance which has no statutory force behind it is not sufficient. But surely the time to say that it is not sufficient will come if and when we find that the millers are not carrying out their assurance? Speaking from what experience I have had of dealing with the millers, particularly on this Bill, I would say that there is no reason whatsoever for us to assume that they will not carry out that assurance. They have done everything in their power to assist us to produce a workable measure, and there is surely no reason for legislating before it has been established that legislation is necessary. The noble Lord probably is quite right—I should like to have a little further advice upon it—in saying that in a given time it might be possible to abrogate certain treaties, in order to make this legislation possible; but why should we do that when no case is established for the necessity of so doing? For these reasons I ask the noble Lord, although the Government recognise the importance of the point which has been raised, not to press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I quite admit the force of the answer of the noble Earl, and although I have great sympathy with the Amendment I see the difficulties against it. Of course your Lordships are

261
fully aware that as this Bill only affects one crop, and, although it is a very important crop, only affects a comparatively small area of farming throughout the country, there is naturally considerable feeling among other sections of farming that they have been left out in the cold. Therefore if the Government could have accepted this Amendment, and thought it would answer the purpose for which it is moved, I certainly would have urged them to do so, because there is no doubt that if the offals now exported from this country were used for feeding cattle at home it would be of great advantage. I must admit, however, that there is one other side to the question. I know that it is an old story on behalf of the millers that they have to sell their offals abroad because their customers abroad will take their whole supply, whereas farmers in this country will not organise and will only take one or two bags at a time. I can see the reasons why your Lordships should not pass this Amendment, but I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he might try to do something to help the millers in the pledge they have given by organising our farmers, so that they may take this stuff and get it properly distributed amongst them.
LORD STRACHIE: I understand Lord Banbury to say that while he is in sympathy with the Amendment yet he opposes it because he thinks that persons should be entitled to do what they like with their own property. I should have thought that the experience of the noble Lord in Parliament, like my own experience, would have reminded him that Acts are continually being passed to prevent persons from doing what they liked with their own property, and that the proposal in this Amendment in that respect was nothing new at all. With regard to the merits of the case, apparently the noble Earl did not object to the merits but said it was difficult to deal with it, owing to some negotiations, I understand, with the millers. On the other hand he went on to say that the millers had given some undertaking that these offals would only be exported under licence. I wish he had gone further and said he was going to embody that undertaking in the Bill, because it is very desirable that there should be Parliamentary and statutory authority for that. No doubt at the present moment the
262
undertaking will be entirely honoured by the millers, but times change and it might be repudiated.
I suppose the noble Earl is aware that for a great many years this question of exporting offals has been a grievance of the farmers, because they have to buy offals at a heavy cost which in many cases exceeds the price for which their wheat was actually sold. Under Free Trade it was thought to be perfectly right for these offals to be exported abroad, because most of the milling was done at the ports. Then it was bought by our competitors in Denmark and other countries. On the other hand it has always been a great grievance of our farmers that their competitors in Denmark, the producers of dairy products, were able to buy cheap offals while they themselves had to pay a very high price. It was argued that as a free trade country we could not do anything to deal with the matter, and that it was right our competitors abroad should be able to buy cheap offals and send over goods to compete with our own. That, however, is all wiped out. We have now got a Government prepared to go in for Protection, and I hope my noble friend who has moved the Amendment, which has the strong support of the Central Landowners' Association, will go to a Division upon it, in order to show that there are many of your Lordships who are prepared to help the farmers in their great difficulties.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I should not have troubled your Lordships but for the fact that I happen to be in the position of being the only representative of the millers, or perhaps I should say the flour millers' profession, in this House. That being so I think it is as well that your minds should be disabused of some current misconceptions on this subject. If Lord Cranworth's Amendment were carried out, and I have the greatest sympathy with the live-stock farmers on this point, presumably the result would be that the miller would have a worse market for his offals. In other words he would be forced to sell them more cheaply. If he was forced to sell them more cheaply he would be bound to put up the price to the buyer who sells bread. Of course, the way in which he costs his flour for bread is by deducting what he gets for his offals before he makes up

263
his price for his flour. As he competes, or did compete until the other day, with the whole world in the production and sale of his flour, he had to keep his flour as low as possible, and still has; and therefore he had, and still has, to keep the price of his offals as high as possible. In other words, he sells his offals in the best market. So that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, were inserted, a small but possibly at times an important addition to the price of bread would take effect. Secondly, the flour milling industry of this country would be put at a disadvantage as against the flour milling industries of other countries, and as it has only hung on by its eyelids during the last ten years, that would be extremely undesirable in the interests of the country.
Two more misconceptions exist on the subject. The price of offals is finally regulated by the value of offals in relation to other food stuffs. If the farmer pays £7 10 s. for bran, he is paying because he considers it as well worth it as, we will say, £11 for linseed. It is the price of other food stuffs which regulates the price he gets for his offals, and nothing else. The other misconception is that the Danish farmer buys in huge quantities whereas the English farmer does not. The Danish farmer is a small farmer. He could not possibly buy in large quantities. The large importing agents do buy in large quantities, possibly the co-operative societies buy in large quantities. There is nothing to stop a co-operative society in England buying in large quantities, and very often they do. But to talk of the farmer only being able to buy two bags of offals at a time is ridiculous. Anybody who feeds pigs on any scale would get through 100 tons of offals in a year, and his society ought to be able to contract for some thousands of tons of offals. So I venture to press your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord says that 100 tons of offal are bought by individuals per annum; but is that the actual practice?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Large pig breeders put in a contract, when they think it is worth while, to their local millers or corn merchants for six months ahead.
VISCOUNT EMBANK: What about the smaller people?
LORD PHILLIMORE: The smaller people naturally buy in smaller quantities.
LORD CRANWORTH: I must confess I find myself in something of a, quandary over this matter and extremely disappointed, not at the reply I got from the noble Earl, but at the position in which I find myself. I regret I was not impressed by the remarks of Lord Phillimore on this matter. I think the price which the farmer pays in this country for his offals is always the lowest he can get them at; there is no other consideration with him. And I cannot see, therefore, that the fact that co-operative societies in Denmark get them cheaper is any help to him. The millers themselves have expressed themselves entirely in favour of the principle of my Amendment, and are going to do everything in their power to enforce the principle. I suggest that they will not be able, but that they are going to do their best I am quite convinced. As I understand the position it is this. If I go to a Division and the Amendment is carried, it would go to another place and be ruled out of order, and we should then hear no more of it. In those circumstances, and not because I am convinced that my Amendment would not be in the interests of farming, because I am still absolutely certain that it would, I feel that I have in reality, but most unfortunately, no option but to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15:
Penalties.
15.—(1) If any person with intent to deceive—

(a) forges or uses or lends to or allows to be used by any other person any certificate, receipt or other document issued under this Act or under the by-laws of the Wheat Commission; or

(c) knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining any such certificate, receipt, or other document or any payment payable under this Act or under the by-laws of the Wheat Commission; or

(d) being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, knowingly furnishes false information, or being so required as aforesaid to produce any accounts, books or

265
other documents, knowingly produces any false accounts, books or other documents;

he shall, unless indicted for the offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(5) Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or by an auditor by whom any accounts of the body corporate were audited, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "forges," to insert "or alters." The noble Viscount said: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. The words occur in Clause 112 of the Road Traffic Act, and to show how necessary these words are I may mention that I read in the Daily Express this morning the report of a case at Worthing where a man got four months hard labour for fraudulently altering a Road Fund licence. It occurs to me that, unless you do have these words in, there may be a technical defence though it is an act of fraud.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, after ("forges") insert ("or alters").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Viscount is quite right in saying that the Road Traffic Act of 1930 has these words, but the Ministry of Agriculture are more up-to-date, and in the Improvement of Live Stock Act, 1931, the noble Viscount will find that the words "or alters" are not there, because it has been held that if the alteration is material then it is forgery within the meaning of the Forgery Act, of 1913. Therefore these words are not necessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I must congratulate the noble Earl on being more up-to-date than the Minister of Transport. In these circumstances I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (c), after 'state
266
ment," to insert "or withholds any material information," and, after "obtaining," to insert "for himself or any other person." The noble Viscount said: The words of these Amendments also occur—
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept these two Amendments, but not the following one.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Very well. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 17, after ("statement") insert ("or withholds any material information").
Page 21, line 18, after ("obtaining") insert ("for himself or any other person").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, in subsection (1) (d), after "false," to insert "or withholds material." The noble Viscount said: As I understand that the noble Earl will not accept this, I will not move it now, but, if necessary, put it down again.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): No, put it in now.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 24, after ("false") insert ("or withholds material").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The paragraph makes it an offence if anyone, on being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, furnishes information which is false. The insertion of the words "or withholds material" would mean that a person might be liable for an offence for withholding information which he had not been asked for and which he was not aware was material. It is one thing to make a person liable to a penalty if, after notice, he fails to furnish the information. It is quite a different thing to render him liable to punishment for failing to furnish information which he has not been asked to give and which he may have no means of knowing whether it is material or not. For that reason I ask the noble Viscount not to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Having heard what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"( ) If any person who is duly authorised under this Act to inspect any certificate, receipt or other document, has reasonable cause to believe that any such certificate, receipt or other document produced to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Act is a document in relation to which an offence under this section has been committed he may seize the document and when any document is seized under this section the person from whom it was taken shall, unless the document has been previously returned to him or he has previously been charged with an offence under this section, be summoned before a court of summary jurisdiction to account for his possession of the said document and the court shall make such order respecting the disposal of the said document and award such costs as the justice of the case may require."
The noble Viscount said: Lord Russell, in dealing with a similar clause in the Road Traffic Bill, said that the clause also provided that a police constable might seize the document which he suspected of being a forgery. That was obviously proper because otherwise the document would not be available when it was wanted. For that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Viscount has misunderstood the purpose of this provision. It is true that in the case the noble Viscount referred to there was some point in imposing the right of seizure. But here there is none, because the certificate is quite valueless unless it is produced and, therefore, there is obviously no necessity to have any power to seize it.
VISCOUNT BEIITIE OF THAME: The noble Earl has again convinced me that I am wrong and I ask leave, therefore, to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of." The noble Lord said: This Amendment
268
deals with the penalties. If your Lordships turn to subsection (5) on page 22 of the Bill you will see that it provides that—
"Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or by an auditor by whom any accounts of the body corporate were audited, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
I have no objection to, in fact I cordially support the first two-and-a-half lines of this subsection, where it says that where an offence committed under the Act by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of any director, manager, or auditor he shall be guilty of the offence. It is quite right that the director, auditor, or manager should be punished if he consents to or approves of any wicked or illegal act.
If you turn to the previous page you will see that under Clause 15 if any person with intent to deceive forges or knowingly makes a false statement, etc., he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both imprisonment and fine. I have not the slightest objection where a company is concerned that the officers should be punished if there is any forgery going on or false statements knowingly made with their consent and approval, just the same as if a person owning a business did it in his private capacity. What I do object to, unless there is some very excellent legal explanation which alters the plain meaning of words, is to say that where an offence under this Bill has been facilitated by neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of a body corporate or an auditor by whom the accounts of the body corporate have been audited they should be guilty of the same offence and receive the same punishment. Surely you should make it possible to impose a lesser punishment on a person who does a thing by neglect than on one who does it with malice aforethought because he wishes to deceive.
Looking at these words it seems to me absolutely plain that it is so and, there-

269
fore, I have placed on the Paper an Amendment providing for a heavier penalty to the officer of a corporation or association who does such things knowingly, and a lesser punishment (namely, a fine of £5 and in the case of a second offence £50) in the case of a person who neglects his duty in some way and enables forgery to take place. Surely in the case we read of the other day in Sweden, you would not punish the director of one of Kreuger's companies who by neglect was deceived by the forgeries of Kreuger in the same way as you would punish a director who was working hand in glove with Kreuger in actually making the forgeries. It may be said that all these things should be left to the discretion of the learned Judge.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Hear, hear.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I submit, with all deference, that it is not a case of "Hear, hear." I think it is a case for differentiation. As I understand the law, you do not allow a Judge to hang a man for manslaughter; you only allow him to hang a man for murder. You provide a maximum punishment for manslaughter and a definite punishment with a minimum penalty for murder, Therefore, if you differentiate in that case between manslaughter and murder, it seems to me you ought equally to differentiate between the case of a man who does a thing knowingly in order to deceive and get profit for himself and the case of one who does a thing negligently. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 16, leave out ("or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
EARL DE LA WARR: This subsection as it is printed in the Bill followed a precedent which was originally set in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, presided over by Mr. Justice Clausen. I think nearly all legislation dealing with this point has proceeded along those lines. The last time it was used in this form was in the Coal Mines Act of 1930. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, wants to reduce the penalty allowable in the case of negligence. Is there really any need for this distinction? Surely the noble Lord does not fully realise the importance of the point, though he mentioned it, that the penalties laid down
270
in the Bill are maximum penalties. Surely the Courts can be trusted. The noble Lord, I think, suggested they could not, but I suggest to your Lordships that they can be trusted not to impose a severer penalty than the justice of the case demands. It may be possible for a case of negligence to arise which really is so gross as to merit a penalty equal to that which would have been imposed in the case of approval or consent. Therefore I can see no reason whatsoever why we should not trust our Courts and Judges sufficiently to allow them to impose the maximum penalty if they so desire. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon his Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: This is the most extraordinary statement I have listened to for a very long time. If the noble Earl's argument was carried to its logical conclusion you would at once do away with any limit to the punishment of manslaughter. You would say that "manslaughter and murder are really the same thing, that to manslaughter someone is really sometimes nearly as bad as to murder him; let us have the penalty of death for both offences, and trust the Judge to discriminate between the two." If that is the line on which the noble Earl considers justice is to be meted out I think it is a most extraordinary one.
EARL PEEL: I do not know whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House (Viscount Hailsham) quite approves of this. I do not think the answer of the noble Earl is very satisfactory. He takes the case where negligence has been so gross as to amount to an offence, as he said, "almost equally as bad as the original offence." That is one case, but there are a great many other cases. I may be wrong but as I read this clause it says this: If an offence has been committed with the approval of certain persons, or has been facilitated by any neglect—it does not say serious neglect, but any neglect—not necessarily serious neglect, as the noble Earl spoke of, but any neglect—those persons shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence—that is the point I lay stress upon—and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. I am well aware that the Judge would have a certain limit of punishment. He could have certain

271
discretion, but the point is that it looks as if such a person would be deemed to be guilty of an offence, that is a criminal offence, though he had committed no criminal act of any sort but had only been guilty of an act of neglect which happened to have certain consequences. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but it strikes me that a perfectly innocent person, by a slight act of neglect, may be declared guilty of an offence.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl, Lord Peel, appeals to me because he remembers that I once was supposed to know something about the law, but I am now only Secretary of State for War. As my noble friend Lord De La Warr said, this clause was originally framed by Mr. Justice Clauson's Committee which contained some eminent lawyers some twenty-two years ago, and has not so far been challenged, as far as I know, and it was used as recently as the year before last in the Coal Mines Act where, equally, it escaped challenge, although the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will remember that he and I were both careful to try and correct some of the very glaring abuses and faults in that Act. The answer I think to the noble Earl is this. It is quite true that if a person has facilitated the commission of an offence under this Bill by his neglect he (the person who so facilitates that offence) is to be guilty of an offence under the Act. That is quite true. You cannot punish him at all unless he is guilty of an offence. Nobody is going now, criminally, to punish a man unless you have first convicted him, and the conviction means that you find him guilty of an offence. All that happens in practice—I speak with some little experience—is that if the offence is a trivial one the magistrates take advantage of the Probation of Offenders Act, and of other similar provisions, and dismiss the case on the payment of the costs or bind the offender over for twelve months, or inflict a trifling penalty, perhaps even a few shillings fine.
In practice there is no difficulty in differentiating between cases in which there has really been grave neglect, neglect so gross as almost to amount to the commission of the offence itself, and cases in which there
272
has been a comparatively trifling neglect which no doubt has facilitated the offence but which is only in a mild degree culpable. In the latter case the offence would be dealt with by binding over, in the other case it would be met by the infliction of a heavy fine, but the discretion is left to the Court in these cases to deal with the offender according to the magnitude of his guilt. In practice I think the tendency of our Courts in these days has been very much in the direction of mercy and leniency, and there is no ground for fearing undue harshness. I would add that any conviction would be liable to revision by the proper Court in the King's Bench, so that there is no fear of any ignorant, if there could be such, or inexperienced Judge inflicting too heavy a sentence. There would be at once an appeal, and the matter would be put right. I think, therefore, we can trust the Courts in this case with the powers which have been conferred on them in previous cases and which, so far as I know, have not led to any abuses in practice.
EARL PEEL: I am extremely obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and I flatter myself that I have revived in his mind some ancient memories of the law. If I have done that I have had some success. But he brought a charge against me which I wish to defend myself against, and that was that a similar clause to this was put into the Coal Mines Act, and that though I was engaged in criticising that Bill in association with him, I apparently did not discover this particular point. My defence is that there were so many grave defects in the Coal Mines Act that this small one probably escaped my observation. That is my answer to the charge.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Though not convinced I should like to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Interpretation.
19.—(1) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—

273
"Bread" means the article produced by baking flour together with water and salt fermented with yeast, without the addition of any other substance, so, however, that no such article shall be deemed to be bread unless it is in the form of a loaf weighing not less than fourteen ounces.
"Cereal year" means the period of twelve months beginning on the first day of August in every year and ending on the thirty-first day of July next following;
"Output" means, in relation to a miller, the flour produced (whether by milling or mixing) by him in the United Kingdom which is delivered by him on sale or otherwise for consumption or use either by himself or by any other person, and in relation to an importer, the imported flour of which entry is made by him or on his behalf for home consumption or home use;
"Wheat meal" has the same meaning as in the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the enactments relating to customs, the expression "United Kingdom" shall not, in the application of those enactments for the purposes of the Act, include the Isle of Man; and for the purposes of this Act, flour removed from or to the Isle of Man into or out of the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be imported or exported, as the case may be.
(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, all products produced by the milling of wheat, except substances separated in the milling as wheat offals, shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be flour, and any substances mixed with such products, whether milled therewith or subsequently added, shall be deemed to form part of the flour:
Provided that if in any parcel containing flour mixed with substances not produced by the milling of wheat the weight of those substances is sixty per cent. or more of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.
In this subsection the expression "wheat offals" means the residual products extracted from wheat as germ or for animal or poultry food, and if in any parcel containing wheat offals mixed with flour the weight of the flour is five per cent, or less of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.
(4) In computing the output of any miller, flour delivered by him to premises other than those in which it was milled, for the purpose only of being mixed by him with flour or other substances, shall, if the resulting mixture is flour, be deemed not to have been delivered until that mixture is delivered for home consumption or home use.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in the definition of "bread," to leave out the words "article produced by baking flour together with water and salt fermented with yeast," and to insert "product produced by baking flour unmixed with any substance other than water, salt and yeast or other leaven." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is an improved definition of bread. The definition of bread was somewhat criticised in another place so we are submitting to your Lordships an improved draft.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, leave out from ("the") to ("so") in line 10 and insert ("product produced by baking flour unmixed with any substance other than water, salt and yeast or other leaven."—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD DICKINSON: What is the effect of this paragraph? It defines bread as an article in the form of a loaf weighing not less than 14 ounces. The only place where the word bread is used is in Clause 3, where there is provision made for the export of bread. There is to be a rebate of the sum paid on the quarter of wheat. I would like to ask whether this definition would limit the rebate to loaves of bread and nothing else? There are many other things besides bread exported—things that are made out of flour, such as biscuits and so forth. Is there to be no rebate on that kind of export?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think what the noble Lord says is quite right. This definition will limit that rebate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 10, leave out ("article") and insert ("product").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to add to the definition of "cereal year" the words "up to and including the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight." The noble Viscount said: This is the last Amendment I propose to move with the consequential Amendment to it. The object is to put a definite termination to the operation of this Bill. The Minister of Agriculture, when introducing the Bill, or at some stage when it was under discussion in another place, stated that the aim of the Government was to
275
help arable farmers at this juncture—that is to say, he contemplated that the help should be given at a particular moment but that it should not be a permanent and indefinite help. The Secretary of State for Scotland, also, speaking in another place, referred to this as being a temporary measure. Now this is either a temporary Bill or a permanent Bill. If it is a temporary Bill then I think we ought to put a definite time to its operation and its life. It seems to me on consideration that if we have a period of six years that would be a very reasonable time during which Parliament should force the public to subsidise a particular branch of an industry.
Not so very long ago the Lord President of the Council, when dealing with the Safeguarding Act, stated that, in his opinion, a period of five years was sufficient for an industry to establish itself. That is to say that if an industry could not establish itself during five years it ought not to get artificial and therefore unnecessary protection. Looking ahead I think we ought to contemplate agriculture being able to continue without special or extravagant subsidies. I have pointed out, and I understand the noble Earl to agree with me, that half the money which is going to be raised under this Bill would be sufficient to carry out the intention of the Government—namely, to give a fair profit to wheat growers who can only grow wheat at 45 s. That means that something like a maximum of £3,000,000, calculated on present prices, would carry out the intention of the Government. It is generally agreed that the Bill with present world prices will cost double that, something like £6,000,000. That is to say, as I have already pointed out, that a large number of people will get a profit, not a profit which they themselves do not want to have but a profit which the Government do not want to give them. Therefore I suggest that this ought not to continue indefinitely and that six years is quite long enough for a Bill which leads to such a very large unnecessary expenditure. At a previous stage the noble Earl referred to this as an "agreed Bill." It is not an agreed Bill in the sense of the milling industry having asked for it or having agreed that it is desirable. All that they have agreed is that it can be worked. It is not agreed in any other sense. For these reasons I
276
venture to suggest that for the future of agriculture as a whole—wheat growing as well as other branches—we ought to put a definite time limit to this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 17, after ("following") insert ("up to and including the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight").—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I would suggest to your Lordships that the noble Viscount really wants to be too definite at the present moment which is admittedly a most indefinite time. He asks whether the Bill is to be a temporary Bill or a permanent Bill and says that if it is to be temporary then we must say exactly when it is to finish. Who to-day amongst us would like definitely to answer either of those two questions? I know that I would not. What we are proposing is to give to the wheat farmer three years complete security and stability. It is admittedly for this country an experimental step and we are going to watch the effect of what we have done. We have got to see the effect it has on the development of the wheat industry itself; the various technical developments that may take place in the industry; the conditions of other sections of farming; the course of world prices for wheat; the course of world values in terms of money, and the effect that it has on the consumer of bread in the towns. All these are things which we have to study in the next three years. We have also to see how far it is possible to do what the noble Viscount wishes to do, what I wish to do and what I think most of your Lordships wish to do—to develop every section of the agricultural industry as well as wheat. I would, therefore, suggest to the noble Viscount that, having given this three years' definite stability to wheat, it is better to watch events and not attempt to settle a problem when really at the moment we are not in possession of information that would enable us to settle it.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Amendment does not touch the next three years. It proposes to terminate the operation of the Bill not in three years but in six years. What I have endeavoured to suggest is that we could quite justifiably in the interests of agriculture say that six years from now the principle of

277
subsidies to one branch of agriculture should terminate. I will not press the Amendment unless there seems support for it, but I would like to point out that the noble Earl confined his remarks to the question of three years whereas I said that the Bill should terminate in six years.
EARL DE LA WARR: My remarks also apply to six years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert after the definition of "cereal year":
"'Delivered' means: in relation to the output of a miller, delivered by him on sale or otherwise for consumption or use either by himself or by any other person; and in relation to the output of an importer, entered by him or on his behalf for home consumption or home use."
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 17, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next four Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 19, leave out ("Customs Consolidation Act, 1876,") and insert ("enactments relating to customs")
Page 25, line 21, leave out ("means") and insert ("shipped as stores, includes")
Page 25, line 23, leave out ("exportation or")
Page 25, line 24, leave out from ("stores") to the end of line 26.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert:
"Flour' means the products produced by the milling of wheat, and includes all such products except substances separated in the milling as wheat offals, and (subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section) where such products as aforesaid are mixed with other substances, whether or not produced by the milling of wheat and whether milled with the wheat or subsequently added, the mixture shall be deemed to be flour."
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 26, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert:
"'Meal' means wheat meal as defined by the Fourth Schedule to the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, either alone or mixed with other substances not being flour."
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 36, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to substitute the following as the definition of "output":
"'Output' means (subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section) in relation to a miller the flour produced by him in the United Kingdom which is delivered by him; and in relation to an importer, the imported flour delivered by him."
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting alteration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 11, leave out lines 11 to 18 and insert the said new definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment to leave out the definition of "wheat meal" is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 31, leave out lines 31 and 32.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert:
"'Wheat offals' means the residual products which, in the process of milling wheat, are extracted therefrom as germ or for animal or poultry food."
The noble Earl said: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 32, at end insert the said definition.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert, after subsection (1):
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in the definition of flour contained in the last foregoing subsection—

(a) where any flour consists of a mixture containing substances not produced

279
by the milling of wheat, by-laws of the Wheat Commission made in that behalf may direct that, as respects that mixture, those substances shall be deemed not to form part of the flour;

(b) if in any parcel containing substances produced by the milling of wheat the weight of those substances, other than wheat offals, does not exceed seven and a half per cent. of the weight of the parcel, the parcel shall be deemed not to contain flour.

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

(a) where any flour, having been delivered by the miller from the premises in which it was milled to other premises for the purpose only of being mixed by him with other flour or other substances, is, after being so mixed, comprised in his output of flour from the last mentioned premises, then if the mixture is all flour, account shall be taken only of the delivery from the premises in which it was so mixed as aforesaid, but if the mixture contains substances which, in accordance with by-laws made for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, are deemed not to form part of the flour. account shall be taken only of the delivery from the premises in which the flour was milled;

(b) there shall be deducted from the quantity which, but for the provisions of this paragraph, would have been the quantity of his output of flour, so much of that quantity as he proves to the satisfaction of the Wheat Commission to have formed part of the output of flour of some other miller or of an importer of flour, as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

The noble Earl said: Since the Bill left the House of Commons discussion has continued between the Government and the representatives of the milling industry and the importers of flour with a view to clearing up ambiguities and difficulties on technical points affecting the flour milling and importing trades. These new subsections are proposed with a view to greater clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, after line 32, insert the said new subsections.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: There are two other consequential Amendments, one of which is to omit subsections (3) and (4). I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 37, after ("flour") insert ("and bread").
Page 26, line 41, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 22 on page 27.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution and Proceedings of Wheat Commission.
1. The Commission shall be a body corporate by the name of the "Wheat Commission" with a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain, and shall consist of a chairman, a vice-chairman, and fifteen other persons appointed by the Minister.
2. Of the members of the Commission other than the chairman and vice-chairman there shall be appointed—

(a) as representing the interests of the growers of home-grown millable wheat four members;

(e) as representing the interests of consumers of flour, five members, of whom one at least shall be appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread;

and before appointing any person as representing the interests of consumers of flour the Minister shall (except in the case of a person appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread) consult the Board of Trade, and before appointing any person as representing bakers of bread or any of the other classes of persons aforesaid the Minister shall consult such bodies as, in his opinion, represent that class.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "fifteen" and insert "seventeen". The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make the representation of the growers upon this Commission greater than that of the consumers. I believe that was originally the case before the Bill was altered in another place. The object of this Bill is to help the producer and I admit that I want to weight the scales a little on the producer's side. I do not think any injustice will be done thereby and it was the arrangement which originally conmended itself to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Lord Bayford.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have an Amendment of a somewhat similar character to that of my noble friend. I should hope that the Government would agree to accept the two

281
Amendment standing in my name later on and not to accept this Amendment, which would increase the number of the Commission. Unless I am mistaken the original number was thirteen. It seems to me to be a pity to increase that number to seventeen. If the noble Earl will accept my Amendment the Committee would still remain at fifteen, but farmers or producers would have six representatives out of fifteen and the consumers would have three. The Bill is not intended for the benefit of the consumer. The Bill is intended for the benefit of the producer, and if you are only going to give the producers four out of fifteen places you place them in a very weak position. My proposal is to give them six and to reduce the number of consumers from five to three. My belief—again I speak subject to correction—is that in the original Bill the number of consumers was only two; it certainly was not more than three. If therefore ray Amendment is carried all that happens is that I have made a proposal which is what the Government desire.
LORD CRANWORTH: I hope the noble Earl will accept this because it seems to me such a common-sense point of view.
EARL DE LA WARR: When the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, moved his Amendment I confess to having felt some sympathy with him, but when the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, weighed in and suggested that the alteration should be at the expense of the consumers' representatives I confess to have lost some of that sympathy. The noble Lord says that after all the Bill is for the producers and he asks why should the consumers be represented. But that is precisely the reason why the consumers should have representation. I cannot see why, when the farmers are being presented with this sum of money, they cannot allow the consumers to be represented. I would like to ask whether the farmers or their representative have asked the noble Lord to move this Amendment. So far as I know the farmers have completely accepted the settlement that was come to with regard to the composition of this Commission. The negotiations between the various interests
282
as to its composition have been pursued with complete good will on all sides and, while naturally any element would like greater representation, we have no evidence that the farmers are dissatisfied.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I was asked to move this by the representative of the farmers in the House of Commons. He spoke about it in the House himself.
EARL DE LA WARR: He was speaking as an individual. There is no resolution of the National Farmers' Union asking for this. Another point is that under the terms of the Bill the farmers have to pay for the expenses of the Commission and the more cumbrous you make it the more expensive it will be. You will be doing a poor turn to the farmers by increasing the expenses.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The fact that the farmers have got to pay is a strong reason for giving them a larger representation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph 1, to insert: "( ) The Minister may remove any member of the Commission from his office for inability or misbehaviour." The noble Viscount said: These words appear in Clause 63, subsection (11), of the Road Traffic Act. On the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepted the principle of an Amendment moved by me to cover this point, though he said it was rather unhappily worded and reserved the right, which he exercised, to alter the wording to the form of words which is now under your Lordships' consideration. I should like to try to forestall the reply which the noble Earl will probably give. I think he may say that the point is covered under paragraph 3 of the Schedule, which states that:
"Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate office in accordance with such conditions as may have been determined by the Minister before his appointment."
But it is much better to have it in the Bill because then it can give no offence. If it is put into the contract it may cause offence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) The Minister may remove any member of the Commission from his office for inability or misbehaviour").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Viscount really answered himself in the very words I was going to use—that the matter is provided for already under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule, which enables the Minister to attach such conditions as he thinks fit. It will be better to leave it at that.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It may give offence if it is put in the contract, but it cannot do so if these words are inserted in the Bill while the names of the Commissioners are unknown.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had placed on the Paper an Amendment in paragraph 2 (a) to leave out "four" and insert "six." The noble Lord said: It is no use my moving this Amendment because we did not divide on Lord Bayford's previous Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH, on behalf of Lord Bayford, moved to add to paragraph 2: "including in the case of the persons specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph the Agricultural Advisory Committee for England and Wales constituted under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment very willingly, because I shall be very glad to see the Agricultural Advisory Committee given some work to do. I have long been wondering why a body so well-manned and so representative of farming was so little used. If they are given a little work it would be some justification for their existence.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, at end, insert ("including in the case of the persons specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph the Agricultural Advisory Committee for England and Wales constituted under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919").—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I wonder, if I told the noble Lord that we are finding this Committee work in another way, whether it would persuade him to withdraw the Amendment?
LORD CRANWORTH: That depends upon what the work is.
EARL DE LA WARR: That I cannot say at the moment, but I would say that the Agricultural Advisory Committee for England and Wales does speak only for England and Wales, and the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary are working jointly. Therefore the Amendment would mean asking the Secretary of State for Scotland to accept advice from the Agricultural Advisory Committee for England and Wales.
LORD CRANWORTH: I feel it the more difficult to press this Amendment because I am a member of the Committee. I will therefore ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: Can the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House say what business there will be for Tuesday next?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My answer is that at the moment there is no business down for Tuesday next. I had rather hoped that we should have taken the Report stage of the Wheat Bill, but I think on reconsideration, having regard to the phraseology of the Bill and the fact that a good many drafting Amendments have been made, and that one point has been deliberately postponed to the Report stage, it would be better if we waited until Thursday for the Report stage, which would give us a little more time for consideration. That leaves Tuesday vacant. One of the noble Lord's noble friends has a Motion which he was proposing to bring forward on May 10. There is a certain amount of business down for that day, and I have asked that inquiry may be made as to whether it would be convenient for Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede to bring forward his Motion on Tuesday next, in which case he would have first place. I think we had better keep our sitting on Tuesday, in case it should be possible to bring forward Lord Ponsonby's Motion on that date.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.

Preamble
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 further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Scarborough Gas.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

DONCASTER EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further witch the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
CAMBRIDGE CORPORATION BILL.
  TRENT NAVIGATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (POWERS OF INVESTMENT).
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of five members to join with the Committee appointed by this House,
286
as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Tuesday last, to consider the interim recommendations, dated the. 22nd March, 1932, of the Gas Legislation Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, and generally the extent to which gas undertakers should be authorised to invest funds in other undertakings, and to report accordingly.

SIDMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported front the Select Committee, with Amendments.
EAST CORNWALL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.

  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Special Order and Bill; namely:—

  L. Darcy (de Knayth),

  L. Lamington,

  L. Hindlip,

  L. Hardinge of Penshurst (Chairman),

  L. Phillimore.

  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Special Order and Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Special Order and Bill.