Sitting of 15 June 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill.
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."— [The Deputy Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Port of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered: —
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).
  Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain from the Argentine Government their attitude towards British capital now invested in railways and other public services operating in Argentina?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): My right hon. Friend does not consider that a general inquiry such as proposed would, in existing conditions, serve any useful purpose, but my right hon. Friend will always be ready to consider any specific circumstances which may be brought to his notice.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the treatment which has been applied to the Anglo-Argentine
  378
  Tramway Company, which is run by British capital?
  Mr. EDEN: That is a specific question which I have dealt with before. If the hon. Gentleman wants further particulars, I will give them. We are doing all that we can.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not taking steps to send out a battleship to Chile in connection with a similar problem?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This question relates to the Argentine.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFFICIALS AND BRITISH AMBASSADORS (SALARIES).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present salaries of the Secretary-General to the League of Nations, the Director-General of the International Labour Office, and the British Ambassadors at Paris and Washington, expressed in terms of gold marks?
  Mr. EDEN: The salaries in question, expressed in gold marks, are as follow:

  Secretary-General

  81,700

  Director - General, International Labour Office

  72,900

  His Majesty's Ambassadors at Paris and Washington

  34,900

  CHINA AND JAPAN (SHANGHAI CONFERENCE).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Chinese Government accepted the round table conference on the understanding that the conference was concerned only with the restoration of peace in Shanghai, and that all questions arising out of the Sino-Japanese conflict in any part of China would be settled in accordance with the procedure invoked by China before the League, he will give assurances that His Majesty's Government will not allow the inclusion in the agenda of the round table conference of matters not immediately connected with the restoration of peace in Shanghai and will defer all other issues for discussion at Geneva in connection

  379
  with the final settlement of the whole Sino-Japanese conflict?
  Mr. EDEN: The agenda for any conference that may be held on the subject of Shanghai cannot be decided by His Majesty's Government alone but must be settled by discussion and agreement between the participating Powers. But, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) on 26th May last, any such conference will be governed by the principles laid down in the Assembly resolution, and no such conference would be possible without the participation of China.

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is now proposed to re-submit in another form the Government's proposal to the Disarmament Conference with reference to the prohibition of the military training of young people under the age of conscription or voluntary enlistment and education; to which committee it was originally submitted for discussion; who was the British delegate; and which countries announced their opposition to the proposal in its original form?
  Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The proposal was originally submitted for discussion to the Moral Disarmament Sub-Commission of the Political Commission. The United Kingdom Delegate was Mrs. Corbett Ashby. The countries which announced their opposition to the proposal in its original form were Italy, Hungary and Switzerland. It must, however, be remembered that the proposal was at once referred by the Sub-Commission to a sub-committee and was withdrawn at the opening of the latter's discussions, so that the views of other countries who might have objected to the proposal were not ascertained.

  BRAZIL (FERRY FARES).
  Sir CYRIL COBBasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information respecting the dispute between the Leopoldina Terminal Company with respect to the Nictheroy and ferry fares; and, if not, will he ask
  380
  His Majesty's ambassador at Rio de Janeiro to furnish him with a report, to be placed in the Library in due course?
  Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend has no information on this point. In accordance, however, with my hon. Friend's desire, His Majesty's ambassador at Rio de Janeiro will be requested to furnish a report on this subject.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH).
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the death in the United States of America of Miss Violet Sharpe, a British subject; and whether he will make representations to the United States Government requesting that an inquiry should be held into the circumstances of this death and the treatment to which the deceased had been subjected by the New Jersey police?
  Mr. EDEN: I have seen various Press reports about this case, but am not in possession of any information on which representations to the United States Government could properly be based. I may add that I have asked His Majesty's Consul-General at New York to furnish a report.
  Mr. COCKS: Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to expedite this inquiry in view of the feeling in both countries that this poor girl has been bullied to death to cover the incompetence of the police; and will he ask the Consul-General to make special inquiry into the allegations that the third degree method was applied to this British subject?
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any authority or foundation for this allegation, apart from statements in the extreme sections of the Press?
  Mr. EDEN: As I have said, I certainly have no information on which representations could be made, and I think it would be very much wiser to wait for a report.
  Mr. COCKS: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House when he receives this report, or shall I put down a question next week?
  Mr. EDEN: I will consider it.

  SUDAN.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information regarding the slave raiding in the British Sudan; and, if so, whether it can be made public?
  Mr. EDEN: I cannot at present add anything to the particulars circulated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on 6th June.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether he is making further inquiries, and when he is likely to have further information?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member will appreciate that these frontier meetings take some time to produce results. I will gladly let him know when we hear anything further.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    His MAJESTY'S SHIP "PETERSFIELD."
    Mr. DAGGARasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that some of the crew of His Majesty's Ship "Petersfield" are still serving on the China station; will he give an assurance that none of these ratings are to be retained on this station for a period which exceeds the normal period of service on such stations; and will he take steps to see that they are sent home as soon as possible?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Orders were given for the crew of "Petersfield" (which arrived in China in May, 1930) to be utilised as far as possible to fill vacancies arising in other ships on the station. These ratings will be relieved in the ordinary way on completion of their normal period of foreign service, unless they previously volunteer for further service on the station.

    COLLOIDAL FUEL.
    Mr. CHORLTON(for Commander MARSDEN) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether experiments are being made as to the suitability of colloidal fuel for use in His Majesty's ships; and if he can estimate what amount of coal to produce the pulverised fuel will be necessary in the event of the adoption of colloidal fuel for the Fleet?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Experiments as to the suitability of colloidal fuel for use in His Majesty's ships have been carried out and the results have not been sufficiently promising to warrant their continuation, although the matter has not been lost sight of. I am afraid that I am not in a position to furnish an estimate such as is asked for in the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question.
    Mr. MARTIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fuel which was tested by the Navy was the same colloidal fuel as is now being tested by the Cunard Company?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I am only replying to the question whether experiments are being made.
    Mr. MARTIN: Is it not in order to ask if it is the same colloidal fuel?

    PALESTINE.
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the possibility of stimulating the organisation of health insurance in Palestine by voluntary agencies through a Government subsidy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): This question has been raised on more than one occasion with reference to the sick benefit fund of the Jewish Federation of Labour. The view previously taken, with which I agree, was that it would be difficult to justify Government contributing to individual societies. In any event it would have been necessary to reject the proposal on financial grounds, and this would still be the case.
    Mr. ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans are projected for linking up Haifa Harbour with the coastal plain of Palestine by road?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The construction of the new Jaffa-Haifa road is well advanced, and, by the end of 1931, 21 kilometres from Jaffa had been completed. Work is in progress on a new road from Haifa to Acre. A sum of £18,000 has been allocated for essential road connections in the immediate neighbourhood of Haifa Harbour.

  TRANSPORT.

    LAMBETH BRIDGE.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the reasons why a roundabout traffic arrangement has been provided at the Westminster side of the new Lambeth Bridge, whereas no such arrangement has been deemed necessary at the south end of the same bridge?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The "roundabout" type of layout was adopted for the Westminster end of Lambeth Bridge because the approach roads are well adapted for the purpose and it was considered the most suitable system of control for the heavy volume of traffic to be dealt with at that point. The provision of a "roundabout" at the eastern approach to the bridge was regarded as impracticable mainly owing to the nature of the gradients and the existence of tramways. Consideration is, however, being given to the advisability of installing traffic control signals at this junction.

    TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (TRAMCARS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience and danger to persons desirous of boarding or leaving a tramcar in London and the Metropolitan area by the fact that there is no provision for guidance to other traffic; and whether he will issue regulations that at authorised stopping places of tramcars where any person desires to board or alight on-coming traffic must stop?
    Mr. PYBUS: If the hon. Member has in mind a prohibition against the passing of other traffic on the near side when tramcars are stopped, I am not satisfied that any regulation such as is suggested would be advisable or that the law relating to dangerous driving is inadequate to deal with the point.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the actual danger to people who wish to get on and off the tramcars?
    Mr. PYBUS: This matter has been considered more than once by the Traffic Advisory Committee, and the result of their deliberations is as I have already said.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the system suggested in
    384
    this question has been in operation in Glasgow for a number of years and has proved very successful in reducing the number of accidents.
    Mr. PYBUS: I am well aware that it operates successfully in the provinces, but the advisory committee do not think it would operate so successfully in London.
    Mr. GROVES: Can the hon. Gentleman get into touch with the Home Secretary, and ask him to issue instructions that where there is any violation of the rules of safety the police should take action against the drivers of the other vehicles?

    ROAD EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Transport what was the Exchequer contribution towards the maintenance of roads during the financial year 1931–32; and what was the total cost of road maintenance during that period?
    Mr. PYBUS: During the financial year 1931–32 payments amounting to £8,657,000 were made to highway authorities out of the Road Fund in respect of the maintenance of classified roads in counties. In addition £6,469,000 was paid out of the Road Fund towards the block grants payable to local authorities under the Local Government Acts, 1929. I regret that the total cost of road maintenance during the financial year 1931–32 is not yet available.
    Mr. TURTON: Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied that this expenditure cannot be reduced?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am not satisfied that any expenditure cannot ever be reduced.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the Minister say whether the whole of the sum which has been allotted for the maintenance of the roads is being spent on their maintenance and none of it on the improvement of roads?
    Mr. PYBUS: This expenditure is carefully controlled, and, as far as I am aware, the money is spent only on maintenance.

    ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.
    Mr. PIKEasked the Minister of Transport (1) the total number of stage carriage services now operated by combine companies compared to the number operated prior to the Road Traffic Act;

    385
    (2) the total number of applications for public service licences made by non-combine, stage carriage, operators and the total number made by combine operators, and the number of applications in each case which have been refused renewal since the operation of the Road Traffic Act?
    Mr. PYBUS: Applications to the Traffic Commissioners are not classified according to the size of the business of the applicant or whether it represents a combination of operators; it is not possible, therefore, for me to supply my hon. Friend with the information for which he asks. I may say, however, that there were at the end of 1931 nearly 6,000 operators who owned less than 10 public service vehicles.
    Mr. GROVES: Has the hon. Gentleman any control or influence over the conditions under which the men work?
    Mr. PYBUS: That is another question.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the present amount of benefit accruing to hospitals by reason of third-party accident claims under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is only approximately £25,000 a year, or 10 per cent. of the total cost incurred in treating patients injured in road accidents; and whether he will consider making inquiries into this matter with a view to obtaining information on which amending legislation may be based?
    Mr. PYBUS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave on this subject on the 13th and 28th April to the hon. Members for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) and Leigh (Mr. Tinker), respectively, of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Does my hon. Friend realise the financial straits to which hospitals are reduced through these cases, and will he consider doing something in the near future?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have said, in answer to a previous question, that I do sympathise with the position of the hospitals, but it is not at the present moment desirable to suggest the introduction of further legislation.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the reason why the hospitals are crowded out is that the panel doctors send their patients there?

    FERRY SERVICES, BURNT ISLAND AND QUEENSFERRY.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by the present working of the ferry services at Burnt Island and Queensferry, he will inquire into the matter with a view to improving the service?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have no power to require persons responsible for working ferries to improve their services, but if nay hon. Friend will furnish me with full particulars of his complaint I will bring it to the notice of the undertakers concerned.
    Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: Can the Minister state whether he has power to inquire into the rates charged to the public by these ferries, seeing that they are generally considered to be unnecessarily high?
    Mr. PYBUS: I think that is another question.
    Mr. GUY: If circumstances permit, does not the Minister agree that the real solution of the problem would be a road bridge across the Forth?
    Mr. PYBUS: Yes, I think that would be the best solution.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the development of the aeroplane, would it be wise to spend more money on road bridges?

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
    Mr. MAXTON(for Mr. KIRKWOOD) asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to open the Glasgow Edinburgh road for traffic; can he explain why it has taken eight years to complete the road compared with the original estimate of three years; will he state the total cost of the road as compared with the original estimate; and how much of this will be borne by the Minister and how much by the local authorities?
    Mr. PYBUS: A considerable part of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road has been open for traffic for some time and the little work still remaining to be done should be completed during the present

    387
    summer. I am not aware that the work was originally estimated to last three years, and the only delays which have been brought to my notice are those experienced in arriving at an agreement with the various authorities and railway companies as to the works to be undertaken. The original estimate for the work was £2,115,000, of which £1,532,500 was to be provided by my Department and £582,500 by the local authorities. It is now estimated that the total cost of the scheme will amount to about £2,323,300, of which £1,708,350 would be provided by the Ministry and £614,950 by the local authorities.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is now over two years since I was told that this road would be completed in a very short time. Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries why this extraordinary delay has taken place? Further, is he sure that no blame attaches to his officers for the delay?
    Mr. PYBUS: The delay is certainly not due to the Department. It has been a very difficult piece of work. We hope the whole road will be opened in the summer.

    MOTOE COACHES, MOEECAMBE.
    Lord BALNIELasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a number of chars-a-bane drivers, washers, cleaners, and booking-clerks in Morecambe and Heysham have become unemployed since the refusal of his Department to allow chars-a-banc to stand on the Marine Road, Morecambe; and whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision?
    Mr. PYBUS: I would refer my hon. and noble Friend to the answer which I gave on 13th June to the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division (Mr. Rosbotham) of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain NORTH: Why has the chief constable of Lancashire suddenly taken exception to a practice that has been going on for a great number of years?

    GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Postmaster-General whether, in the interests of public economy, he will take steps to cancel the opera subsidy?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): As my right hon. Friend informed my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester on the 11th of April last, the agreement between the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which provides for the payment of the opera subsidy, and which was laid before Parliament in June, 1931, was for a term of years as therein provided.
    Captain HAROLD BALF0UR: If the Government in the interests of economy find it necessary to break agreements with State servants, will they not find it necessary in the interests of economy to break this agreement?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be far better to spend this money on allotments for the unemployed?
    Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: Does the Postmaster-General contemplate putting into operation the recommendation of the May Committee that the Postmaster-General should control the capital expenditure of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. WHITE: I should like to have notice of that question.

    POST OFFICE (WIRELESS LICENCES).
    Mr. RAIKESasked the Postmaster-General what the total receipts from wireless licences were far the year ended 31st March, 1932; how much was retained by the Post Office to cover expenses of collection; and how much was paid to the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. WHITE: The total receipts from wireless licence fees during the year ended the 31st of March, 1932, amounted to £2,294,438. Ten per cent, of that sum —or £229,444—was retained by the Post Office to cover the cost of collection and administration in accordance with the supplemental agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was laid before Parliament in June, 1931. The payment to the British Broadcasting Corporation, which, under the terms of their licence, is based on the wireless licence revenue of the previous year, amounted to £1,225,709.
    Captain CAZALET: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is collecting all the fees for licences, or is there still a large number of people who, perhaps, are not paying?
    Mr. WHITE: I am glad to say that our progress in the matter is very satisfactory.
    Mr. H. MORRIS: Is it not the case that the new agreement entered into last year allows 10 per cent. to the Post Office instead of 12½ per cent., and, in view of the new circumstances which have arisen since last July, could it not be placed again on a 12½ per cent. basis?
    Mr. WHITE: That was embodied in the terms of the agreement.
    Mr. GROVES: Does the licence fee of 10s. apply to those cases in which you switch on to the telephone and do not have a wireless set.
    Mr. WHITE: That is another matter.

    PUBLIC BUILDING WORKS (TIME AND-PROGEESS SCHEDULES).
    Sir C. COBBasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet able to give any guidance, for the benefit of local authorities, as to the time-and-progress schedule in connection with work for which the local authorities receive grants from public funds?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): I will send my hon. Friend a copy of an answer on this subject which was given on the 25th May. The matter calls for, and is receiving, careful consideration, but I am afraid that it is not yet possible to give a decision.

    VACCINATION.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain local authorities are paying fees to doctors for vaccinating children under 12 months of age at clinics where children are left all day in charge of a matron; and if he will take steps to stop this practice?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, As regards the second part, this is
    390
    a matter within the discretion of the local authorities. My right hon. Friend assumes that the consent of the parents or guardians of the children is obtained in each case.
    Mr. GROVES: If I send the hon. Gentleman the information will he consider it?
    Mr. BROWN: I shall be very glad to have the information.

    FLOODS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health what assistance has been given or promised by has Department towards exceptional expenditure incurred by local authorites in flooded areas?
    Mr. E. BROWN: As my right hon. Friend has previously intimated to the hon. Member, there are no funds at his disposal from which assistance can be given towards expenditure of this kind.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In districts where a large number of towns and houses were flooded and no rents were received for two or three weeks, will the Department be in a position to help the local authorities?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that miscellaneous expenditure for cleaning houses would be borne on the district rate, and expenditure for the relief of sufferers would be borne on the county rate. Remedial works to prevent recurrencies would be carried out under the Land Drainage Act which is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture. Outside those sources, no funds are available.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I was referring exclusively to the question of rent during the time that the tenants were de-housed.
    Mr. BROWN: I should like to see the hon. Member's question on that point in precise terms.
    Major COLFOX: Is not the fact that recently-built council houses were flooded in large numbers a glaring instance of the folly of town planning?
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now state how many acres of agricultural land were flooded in the Doncaster-Thorne areas during the recent floods, and the average length of time the floods remained?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour):I understand that approximately 11,000 acres of agricultural land in the Doncaster-Thorne areas were flooded during the recent floods. About one-half of this area was flooded for 14 days, and the other half for varying periods up to 14 days.

    POOR RATES (EQUALISATION).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, owing to the reductions in unemployment and transitional benefits, numbers of unemployed workers have to receive relief from public assistance committees; that this relief falls upon the districts which are most affected by trade depression; and whether he will take steps to coordinate the method of levying poor rates, so that an equalisation fund can be established on which the maintenance of the able-bodied poor shall be borne?
    Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend is aware of the increase in the number of unemployed persons in receipt of Poor Law relief and of the fact that a good deal of this increase arises in areas specially affected by trade depression. An equalisation fund could only be established by legislation and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to consider such a proposal at the present time.
    Mr. MACLEAN: This question was put down originally to the Prime Minister by whom policy can be declared. Has this matter been referred to the Prime Minister or to the Lord President of the Council for his observations, and cannot they be given in reply to my question?
    Mr. BROWN: I have been asked to reply, and I have given the answer. The hon. Member will know that my right hon. Friend is not the first Minister to come to this conclusion.

    INDIA (GOVERNOR'S PROVINCES).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now give any estimates of the increased expenditure involved by the raising of the North-West Frontier and Sind to the position of Governor's provinces and by the creation of the new Ooriya province; and by what method this expenditure will be met?
    Sir FREDERICK THOMSON(Treasurer of the Household): The additional overhead charges directly attributable to the institution of a Governor's province are estimated at about 2¾, 1O¼, and 18 lakhs of rupees in the case of the North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Orissa respectively. Apart from these comparatively small increases in expenditure, the revenue obtainable from each of the three areas would be insufficient to meet the expenditure required for their administration. In the case of the North-West Frontier Province, which has already been constituted a Governor's province, the deficiency is to be met by a subvention from Central Revenues fixed provisionally for three years at a crore of rupees a year. No decision has yet been reached as to the future constitutional and financial position of Sind and Orissa.

    IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that associations representing the interests of both growers and sellers of home-grown timber are desirous of laying their views before the delegation going to Ottawa; to whom should they apply; and whether the question of all timber interests, Dominion, Colonial and homegrown, will be treated as one industry under one particular member of the delegation or will be reviewed separately as a general question?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 7th June to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain A. Ramsay), in which it was stated that it is open to any trade which wishes to do so to lay its views before the Industrial Advisers who will accompany the United Kingdom Delegation to Ottawa. I would suggest that the special interests referred to should get into touch with the Industrial Advisers as soon as possible. As regards the last part of the question, Government policy in relation to the timber interests referred to raises issues affecting a number of Departments and will be considered accordingly.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is open to any trade? My question is as to whether associations representing trade sellers and buyers can present their case?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, our advisers will be open to receive representations from anybody who can give them information.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Has the Minister had any representations from, or is he going to take the advice of, those responsible for the Princes Risborough Forestry Institute who know the whole question of Dominion policy and can give most valuable advice?
    Mr. THOMAS: If these very expert people will communicate on the lines that I have indicated, I am sure that we shall welcome all the expert advice that we can get.
    Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any public intimation other than what he has made by means of question and answer across the Floor of the House as to the facilities that different interests have for approaching the Ottawa delegation and their expert advisers?
    Mr. THOMAS: My experience is that no public intimation is necessary. We receive a large number of applications from people who legitimately feel that they have something to say and want to state their case. They are welcomed and met by the Government, and I do not think that any further intimation is necessary. Of course, if, as a result of my hon. Friend's question any others feel that they should come along, the time is short.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I take it that if I were to approach the right hon. Gentleman with a working-class deputation on the question of unemployment and health insurance, I could get access to him?
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend can rest assured that, if he were to approach me with any deputation and I thought that they could give me information that would be of value, then I should be delighted to meet them.
    Mr. MAXTON: Without allowing the technical advisers to intervene?
    Mr. THOMAS: Without anyone intervening, but with the proviso that I must be satisfied that they have something useful to say,
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs who is to be responsible at Ottawa for official information given to the Press?
    Mr. THOMAS: It would be in accordance with the practice at previous Imperial Conferences that the Canadian Government, as conveners of the Conference, should, be responsible for the arrangements whereby official information will be given to the Press at Ottawa.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that he will use his influence to see that someone who is really experienced is made use of to fill this post?
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend will know the difficulty of what he asks. If the Imperial Conference was held in London, we, as the conveners, would be responsible, and it would be rather unfortunate if each of the other Dominions came along and said: "Are you quite sure of the fitness of the individual you have appointed?" I assume that the Canadian Government are fully alive to the responsibilities of this post, and will act accordingly.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that a Russian order for bricks, amounting in value to £200,000, could be placed in Scotland at the present time were not the recent credits for the sale to Russia of goods manufactured in this country up to a total of £1,600,000 exhausted; and whether the Government will consider, in the interests of providing employment in Scotland, the increase of these credits?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No recent application for facilities in respect of the export of bricks to Russia has been received by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. As regards the second part of the question, I am unable to make any further

    395
    statement at present, but the question is under constant review.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not a fact that the Russian Government have a very large favourable trade balance in this country, and can pay cash if they only will?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. SMITHERS: It does.

    DENMARK (EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a recent decision of the Danish Committee of Foreign Exchanges will prevent currency being available for the importation into Denmark of certain goods from Great Britain; and whether he is making any representations in the matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir; particulars of the restrictions in question have now been received, and are being examined.
    Mr. O'CONNORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties which Nottingham merchants are experiencing in obtaining payment for goods consigned to firms in Denmark, which are prevented by the decree of the Danish Government from obtaining the necessary foreign exchange; and whether he will cause representations to be made to the Danish Government that sufficient foreign exchange should be released to its nationals to enable them to meet their trade obligations?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that exchange difficulties in Denmark have in some cases resulted in delay in payment for goods sent from this country, but His Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen has been able to render valuable assistance in this matter, and I would advise Nottingham merchants to communicate with him in regard to any exchange difficulties which they may be experiencing.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. Will he go so far as to agree with me that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am afraid there is a good deal that is rotten in many States.

    IMPORTED TYPEWRITERS.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that typewriters bearing the words "Made in Canada," but really of United States origin, are being offered for sale in this country: that to qualify for the description "Made in Canada" a typewriter need have a 25 per cent. content only, such content including labour, materials, and overheads, and thereupon claims a 99 per cent. rebate of the duty paid on these machines entering Canada; and if he will look into the matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My attention has already been called to this matter, which is receiving consideration.

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state, by categories, the declared value of arms and munitions and naval and military stores, not including sporting arms and munitions, of British manufacture licensed for export to Japan and China for the month of May, 1931, and May, 1932?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not the practice to make public information as to the value of material covered by export licences.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: How are we to know to what extent licences are being issued for this purpose unless the value of the materials is given?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The information for which my hon. Friend now asks has been given.

    COAL EXPORTS.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of coal exported to countries within the British Empire and to foreign countries, respectively, in 1913, and each successive year from 1920 to date, including the first quarter of this year?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows the total weight of the domestic exports of coal from the United Kingdom during the undermentioned years consigned to British countries and foreign countries respectively.

    Year.

    United Kingdom domestic exports consigned to

    British Countries.

    Foreign Countries.

    Thousand tons.

    Thousand tons.

    1913

    2,319

    71,081

    1920

    1,890

    23,042

    1921

    1,886

    22,774

    1922

    3,751

    60,448

    1923

    3,545

    75,914

    1924

    4,597

    57,055

    1925

    4,523

    46,294

    1926

    1,824

    18,773

    1927

    4,952

    46,197

    1928

    4,562

    45,489

    1929

    5,300

    54,967

    1930

    4,848

    50,026

    1931

    4,195

    38,555

    1932 (Jan. to Mar.)

    888

    8,584

    Notes.
    (1) Egypt, which included Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1913, has been treated as a foreign country throughout.
    (2) From the 1st April, 1923, the above figures relate to the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not to the British Isles as a whole as formerly. They therefore include, from that date, exports to the Irish Free State which in each complete year except 1926 have varied between 2,200,000 tons and 2,500,000 tons.

    IMPORTED PIG-IRON.
    Mr. MANDER(for Sir PERCY HARRIS) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the quantity and value per ton of pig-iron imported in the first five months in 1931 and in the first five months of this year from India and from all other countries, respectively?
    Mr. HORE-BEUSHA: The total imports of pig-iron into the United Kingdom registered as consigned from British India during the first five months of 1931 and 1932 amounted to 17,711 tons, of an average declared value of 62s. 7d. per ton and 37,768 tons, valued at 55s. 9d. per ton, respectively. The imports from all other countries during the same periods amounted to 94,389 tons, valued at 64s. 3d. per ton and 41,932 tons, valued at 60s. 2d. per ton, respectively.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pig-iron has not been able to be made at a profit for a considerable number of years and that, if it is all made in this country, it can be made profitably at present prices?

  AGRICULTURE.

    NATIONAL MARK (CINEMA VANS).
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the van which is touring the country in a campaign for the purchase of British goods and to encourage the use of the national mark as a means of identifying British products is made by a British firm?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Two cinema vans have been hired for a three-months experimental tour in each case through certain northern and southern counties of England respectively. With the exception in one case of a small portion of the projection apparatus, both vans, with all equipment, were manufactured in this country.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is being advertised in certain papers that the Western Electric Company, which is an American firm, is sending Government talkies to boost national marks?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Western Electric Company is an English company. It may be controlled by certain interests in the United States, but it is an English company. The fact remains that, as I have said, with the exception of one very small portion of the apparatus, the whole thing is British.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that he can get one that is totally British, with capital, directors, and everything in this country?

    REOEGANISATION COMMISSIONS.
    Captain NORTHasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now give any indication as to whether the reports of the reorganisation commissions for the bacon and milk industries will be available before the winter of the current year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am unable to say when the reports of these commissions will be available. I am satisfied that there will be no avoidable delay.
    Captain NORTH: Cannot my right hon. Friend give any indication as to when I can get some answer to this question, if I put it down later?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have, of course, impressed upon the commissions the urgency of the problems which they have to consider, and I think they are fully alive to it. So far, the matter is in their hands, and I am not in a position to press them beyond what I have done.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Does the Minister anticipate having the legislative proposals arising out of these reports ready for the beginning of the Autumn Session?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: That, also, I cannot say until I know what the recommendations may be.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Would it not be possible for some interim report to be received from these commissions, in view of the great urgency of a settlement for the coming negotiations?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The commissions are alive to the fact that, if they can make an interim report at any time, they may do so, but that is a matter for their judgment.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (PARADES).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police constables and sergeants who are requested by the Commissioner of Police to be at meetings addressed by him are in receipt of pay for the time so spent, or whether the attendance is of a voluntary nature and not therefore in service time; why the members of the force are instructed to appear in uniform; and what is the cost of such meetings upon public funds?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Any such parade is an occasion of police duty, held in service time, with the men in uniform. One such parade has been held by the present Commissioner, involving an expenditure
    400
    of 20 guineas for the hire of the hall in which it was held, and small sums for travelling expenses of the men amounting in the aggregate to not more than £100.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this meeting was held in the time when the men were not on duty; and is that what is called service time?
    Mr. STANLEY: I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the same meeting. The only meeting of this character was held in service time. There are, of course, other meetings occasionally.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am referring to the meeting held in the Albert Hall, in time when the men were not on duty?
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask if the meeting was successful?

    IRISH FREE STATE (LAND ANNUITIES).
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £1,500,000 due for transfer by the Irish Free State on account of land annuities has been received?
    Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sums due from the Irish Free State in respect of land annuities have been received?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The next payment from the Irish Free State Government does not fall due until the latter part of June.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say what is the actual date?
    Major ELLIOT: I understand that the whole question will be discussed on Friday, and I think I had better not say any more now.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there remains a balance of approximately £1,000,000 for distribution to civilian claimants for war reparation;

    401
    how and when this balance is to be paid over to these claimants; and whether the position of those claimants who served in the Merchant Navy during the War or their dependants will receive equal consideration in this respect?
    Major ELLIOT: My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that any balance of the kind referred to in the question exists. As I stated in my answer on 26th May last, the Government cannot ask Parliament to provide further funds to increase the payments already made to claimants.
    Sir B. PETO: Is it not a fact that Parliament voted £5,000,000, and that only £4,000,000 has been paid in claims; so that there is a difference between these sums of approximately £1,000,000 which Parliament has actually voted for this purpose?
    Major ELLIOT: I went into this matter at some length in my answer of the 26th May. The fact remains that the claims of private individuals amount to about 1 per cent. of our total reparation claims from Germany. They have been paid out of money that we received from Germany, and we cannot make any further payment.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (CEMENT).
    Mr. MANDER(for Sir P. HARRIS) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has considered the letter sent to him from the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, asking for some relaxation in the clauses in Government contracts and those of local authorities in the use of British materials only in the case of Portland cement,, because of the increase in price and because of the virtual monopoly in the production of cement in this country; and what he proposes to do in the matter?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The letter in question has been referred to an Interdepartmental Committee on Prices of Building Materials, set up by my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Health. This committee is investigating the facts as to increases in the price of cement, but has not yet issued its report.
    Mr. MANDER: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that there has been an abuse of the privilege, will be consider withdrawing it?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not see how any question of abuse of the privilege can come in. I certainly intend to maintain a preference for the British article. If it is shown that the public is being exploited by undue prices, no doubt there will be inter-Departmental recommendations.

    BRITISH ARMY (CLOTH PURCHASES).
    Brigadier-General NATION(for Mr. PERKINS) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the War Office have at any time during the last three years bought any foreign cloth for uniforms or other purposes?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. J. P. MORRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider issuing instructions to all the Departments of State to allow every facility to any Member of this House who may desire, during the recess, to examine in detail the expenditure of the said Departments with a view to placing before His Majesty's Government, before the next Session commences, suggestions for economies which can be made in the national expenditure?
    Major ELLIOT: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are Committees of this House specially set up and charged with the duty of examining public expenditure. In addition, there are the days devoted to Supply, of which a number still remain before the end of the Session, when Members have an opportunity of bringing criticism of proposed Departmental expenditure directly to the notice of the Ministers concerned. In the exercise of their constitutional responsibility all Members of the Government are I am sure most desirous of examining closely suggestions for economy made to them from any quarter. I regret that I

    403
    am unable to accept the particular proposal in question.
    Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of a drastic reduction in the national expenditure is seriously exercising the mind of many back benchers in the House, and that they would welcome an opportunity to do a real job of work on the lines in the question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is hardly the time to make a speech about it.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).
    Mr. MAXTON(for Mr. WALLHEAD) asked the Minister of Labour, if persons summoned before the public assistance committees under the means test regulations will be permitted the right to be accompanied by a representative in the same way as an applicant may be before the courts of referees?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 11th April, of which I am sending him a copy.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Captain Fergus Graham; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Chorlton.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Hertford." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hertford) Bill [Lords].]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERTFORD) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
CIVIL ESTIMATES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932).
Estimate presented of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1933 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.

  SUPPLY.
    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.]
      Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote, by £100.
      3.30 p.m.
      We have no apologies to offer for raising the question of agriculture again, though it may be that I can sympathise with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are called upon to listen to an emaciated voice. In view of the further sterilisation of international trade and of the import and export trade of the country, agriculture is bound to loom large on the horizon and, as the days roll by, we shall be called upon to invite the right hon. Gentleman periodically to give us precise information about the development of marketing and agriculture. We shall want to know what organisations are developing and whether improvements in efficiency are being made, and we shall be entitled to know from time to time, since agriculture will become a primary consideration of this country as the Government lose their export trade, what they are doing for the utilisation of the land to the maximum possible advantage and what steps are being taken with regard to smallholdings, the provision of seeds for allotments, cottage
      410
      holdings, tied cottages, the wages of agricultural workers and so forth. I shall, however, leave the question of agricultural organisation broadly to my hon. Friend behind who will raise diverse questions later on. I am rather anxious to deal with drainage generally and with Doncaster drainage, or the lack of it, in particular. It will not be out of place for me to review the position with regard to drainage in this country. After 50 years of neglect, a Royal Commission was set up in 1927 to examine the drainage position as far as the law was concerned and to determine what steps were necessary so that the maximum amount of land could be made available for food production and the maximum guarantees provided for the unfortunate farmer who suffered from periodic floods. The Commission estimated when they reported in 1927 that there were 4,320,000 acres of land in England and Wales, and that one-seventh of the total area used for agricultural purposes was dependent for its fertility upon arterial drainage. They also said that 1,755,000 acres were in immediate need of drainage, and that of this area 1,279,000 acres were said to suffer from flooding occasioned by defective or obstructed arterial channels. They went further in their report and indicated the real cause of the periodic floodings of such a large area of agricultural land. In page 23 of their report, they said:
      "It is undoubtedly the neglect of the main channel which is largely responsible for the waterlogging which exists in this country to-day, and the reason that the main channel has not been effectively treated is due largely to the fact which we have already emphasised, namely, the large number of drainage authorities who are concerned with small areas and who work without any co-operation with their neighbours."
      They went on later in the same paragraph to say:
      "The trouble has been created by the fact that the jurisdiction of drainage authorities has been neglected through partial control, or no control at all, of the main channels. It follows, therefore, that a controlling authority in charge of the whole course of the main channel to the river, including its beds and basins, is of the first importance if drainage is to be effective."
      The Conservative Government of 1924–29 took no steps, and more or less disregarded the Report of the Royal Commis-

      411
      sion. The Labour Government in 1930, three years after the report had been submitted, introduced and negotiated through the House of Commons a Drainage Bill, but not without meeting with tremendous opposition from hon. Gentlemen who are to-day sitting on the opposite benches, although in fairness I must say that an ex-Minister of Agriculture, the present Lord Moyne and some Conservative Members welcomed the Bill. The Bill was introduced and passed, and power was given to set up 47 catchment boards throughout the country, each catchment board being charged with the responsibility of caring for the main carrier drains in their particular area. A changed method of allocating rates which would be more equitable under the law than has been the case previously was also devised. There were some hopes, therefore, that, as a result of the passing of the Act drainage would be undertaken seriously and that such periodic floods of the kind referred to would be very largely avoided. During the five years from 1927 to 1932 there has been a tremendous fall in the price of primary products, Periodic floods have more or less destroyed thousands of small farms in the country. We have more land out of cultivation to-day than there has been for the last 70 or 80 years. We were hopeful, when the Bill was placed upon the Statute Book, that, whether it be a Liberal, Conservative, National or Socialist Government, it would see that the work was undertaken even if very considerable grants had to be offered as a bribe to catchment boards to get on with the job. Dr. Addison, the late Minister of Agriculture, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, tried to allay the opposition from farmers' representatives in the House and to encourage drainage authorities to be active by intimating that the Government would be fairly generous with regard to grants which would be provided where they undertook to carry out the necessary work. The words of Dr. Addison were as follow:
      "What it comes to is that the Treasury will be authorised to make grants to enable the drainage schemes that are approved to be carried out, but the Clause does not lay down the standard, and the reason why we have not provided a standard I shall be able to justify abundantly on Friday. We recognise that it has to be a generous and an adequate contribution, and that it would
      412
      be very hard on some of the poorer areas if.we were to put in a standard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1930; col. 1000, Vol. 240.]
      It will be seen that when the Drainage Bill was introduced it was clearly understood that, because of a variety of factors, farmers would not be able to bear any very heavy burdens, and therefore the Government tacitly gave a promise that generous grants would be available so that the work could be undertaken. What did the right hon. Gentleman do immediately he took office? Every hope that was bred as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission in 1927, the passing of the Act in 1930, and the statement made by Dr. Addison was dashed to the ground by the right hon. Gentleman almost immediately he took office. This was how the right hon. Gentleman encouraged catchment boards and drainage boards to get on with the job. On the 19th September last he informed the Doncaster Drainage Board and similar drainage boards that in view of the existing financial situation no further application for grants could be entertained. On the 14th October last he informed the catchment boards, of whom there are 47, that, in view of the need for economy, no further grants could be considered except in cases of the utmost urgency. Therefore, not only did the right hon. Gentleman dash the hopes of all those enthusiasts for drainage and those who would make the maximum use of our land and who really had a genuine desire to secure the balance of trade, but he suggested by implication a rather curious thing. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the land ought to be drained. He says, however, that there is great need for economy, but he has no objection to a district drainage board carrying out drainage work nor has he any objection to a catchment board carrying out work in their own particular areas.
      May I ask when economy is not economy. Is it only economy if national funds are not made available and is it economy if the money of the ratepayers is spent for the same purpose? In many of these areas where drainage is required most of the local people are the least able to bear any further burdens. I shall be able to show the right hon. Gentleman that in my own Parliamentary Division a dozen farmers, comparatively small farmers, have practically lost their crops during

      413
      the last three seasons. Now, they are absolutely hopeless and helpless, and to suggest to that body of farmers that, in view of the need for economy, no national funds can be made available but that if they themselves want to spend large sums of money there is no reason why they should not do so, is an absurd proposition. They are not in a position to meet these demands. They are subject to these periodic floods. In the Doncaster and Thorne areas, involving a good portion of the Don Valley Division, we are informed that 11,000 acres were flooded for a period of two weeks. That means that every single potato plant, all the seed sown during the autumn months and the efforts put in by farmers, small or large, have been lost. Their hopes for any results in the harvesting season has been destroyed by these floods. Therefore, it seems to me a ridiculous position that the need for economy should only be expressed in a national form. Either we have to make up our minds that this land is going to be drained or not, or that the cost is too large and we ought to abandon it. Before we decide to abandon such a large area, however, the question ought to occupy the time of this House.
      I would like to make special reference to the area around about Doncaster. In 1923 a Royal Commission was set up to deal with mining subsidences. They discovered before they had sat very long that there was one special area, the Doncaster area, where a very large portion, quite 78 per cent. of the area, was below the 25 foot contour, while a vast area was only 10 to 15 feet above sea level. They held the view that if coal mining proceeded apace there would be no shadow of doubt that unless drainage was carefully dealt with not only agricultural land, but villages, farm buildings, etc., would very soon be submerged. They therefore recommended the setting up of a special tribunal to deal exclusively with the Doncaster area. In 1926 the late Lord Brentford, then Sir William Joynson-Hicks, acting as Home Secretary, set up a tribunal, with this Preamble:
      "Whereas it has been resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, into the conditions in regard to mining and drainage in an area around the borough of Doncaster."
      The right hon. Gentleman thereupon proceeded to set up a committee of develop-
      414
      ment. On page 14 of the report of that special committee there appeared this statement, the truth of which is obvious to anyone who knows the area.
      "In the Doncaster area, however, where large stretches of country are below or a little above the 25 foot contour, the effect of subsidence would be very considerable. It is therefore quite intelligible that the prospect of the development of coal mines under the Doncaster area should have aroused some apprehension and alarm. It was felt that unless adequate measures were taken, very large tracts of land would be in danger not only of losing their agricultural value through water-logging, but of being submerged, and that the same fate might befall roads, villages and farm buildings."
      That being the case, it seems to me to be absolutely imperative that this district, depending so much for its livelihood upon coal and agriculture and always living in a world of glorious uncertainty about mining subsidences and periodic floods, ought to have much more consideration from this or any other Government than it appears to have had up to the present time. The Royal Commission reported in 1928 and a special Act was passed exclusively for the Doncaster district, which covers an area of approximately 330 square miles, or three times as large as the City of London. Unfortunately, the power to rate was not comparable with the power to rate under the terms of the 1930 Act. They are obliged to rate the individuals, of whom there are many thousands, while the catchment board have the power to rate the county borough or the non-county borough. Therefore, their difficulty in carrying through any really big scheme can be seen at a glance.
      There is one important fact that I wish to bring before the notice of the Committee. Three civil and mining engineers who gave evidence before the Special Tribunal to consider the Doncaster area indicated that within the next 50 or 100 years owing to subsidence the surface might fall anywhere from four to 10 feet and that unless drainage work was undertaken serious results would accrue. The special Act of 1929 was designed, for the purpose of giving power to the special board. Unfortunately, they discovered, having taken advice, that they were not in a position to do the job. The River Don, which traverses an area from Doncaster to Goole, is approximately 21½

      415
      miles long and drains an area inside the Doncaster area of 71,000 acres, and outside the Doncaster area it drains an area of 335,000 acres. So that for every eight gallons of water that finds its way into the River Don only one gallon is collected in the Doncaster area.
      Therefore, those responsible in the area are justified in stating that those responsible for the higher reaches, that is, the Ouse Catchment Board, are as much responsible for caring for the drainage of the River Don as the Doncaster Board. The River Went, which enters the River Don on its way, cleanses an area of 42,700 acres, and two-thirds of the water that finds its way into the Went and ultimately into the Don is collected from an area outside Doncaster. Therefore, the catchment board are afraid to undertake the task of cleaning the River Don. When the tribunal sat an engineer suggested that to deepen the channel to lift the banks, to raise the bridges and carry out such work as appeared to be necessary for a general four feet fall, would cost anywhere round about £600,000 to £800,000. The right hon. Gentleman must know that it would be a financial impossibility for that area to undertake such a gigantic task. They sent in June of last year a tentative proposal to the Minister of Agriculture for cleansing the River Don and doing a good deal of work there, which would have cost somewhere about £250,000, but the only reply they received from the Minister of Agriculture was on the 13th September when they were informed that no other grants were available. Consequently, the scheme had to be dropped.
      During the past few months the right hon. Gentleman's officials have been working very hard with a view to persuading the Ouse Catchment Board to take over the responsibility for draining and caring for the River Don, an equitable and most desirable proposition, but at the moment that idea has not matured, and because of the failure to secure an agreement no work has been done, with the result that in a period of seven months Bentley has been flooded on two occasions. Every hon. Member has no doubt received a copy of an appeal. Apparently the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture are unwilling or unable to make any grant, and they appeal to hon. Members of this House
      416
      to make a contribution to relieve local distress. This circular is even more arresting when you look at the inside, where there is a picture of a colliery employing 3,000 men who were thrown out of work for two full weeks because the area around the colliery appears to be more like a sea than green fields. It also shows people being taken away from their homes in boats. It really is a sight for any man, and I suggest that those hon. Members who can afford to respond to the appeal might very well do so. But that is not sufficient. It is not sufficient for hon. Members who can afford to respond to the appeal made for assistance, we want much more done. We want to see work undertaken which will remove the possibility of a repetition of this occurrence at Bentley. In September, 1931, the then hon. Member for Doncaster made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman but the only response was an intimation to the local people that no money would be forthcoming from the Government. The appeal fell on deaf ears. On 28th April this year the Minister of Agriculture reviewed the work of his Department and took credit to himself for having set an example to other Departments in having economised on education and colleges and also said:
      "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."
      He proceeded to say:
      "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 these figures the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have contributed a reasonable, and, indeed, a good example of economy in our present difficulties."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1932; col. 590, Vol. 265.]
      I followed the right hon. Gentleman in that Debate and, knowing something of the district around the Don and what it had suffered during the past two years, I said:
      "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

      417
      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 lire for weeks in elementary schools, because their houses were not habitable, he would not pat himself on the back for having reduced expenditure on drainage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1932; col. 609, Vol. 265.]
      Little did I think that in about three and a-half weeks from that date 4,000 people in the Bentley district would have been driven out of their homes because of the want of drainage. It was a very quick nemesis. I hardly expected, two months after the Minister of Agriculture had boasted of having saved money at the expense of drainage, that the Minister of Health would be sailing round Bentley in a boat, having a joy ride on what was a sea in this area, where if reasonable work had been carried out on the River Don it would not have occurred. About 1,183 houses were affected and nearly 4,000 people driven from their homes, and at this moment, about a month after the flood, nearly 450 men, women and children are residing in elementary schools. The right hon. Gentleman ought really to repent for having stifled the activities of these drainage boards and ought to insist, if it is necessary, on the Treasury making such provision as is necessary for carrying out drainage schemes such as this in the Don area. What I am saying with regard to the Doncaster area I would say of every area where parallel conditions obtain. Instead of it being an economy not to drain these areas it is, as in this case, unwise, because people are not only driven from their work but some ten thousand acres of really good and useful agricultural land have gone out of production at a time when we are searching for new opportunities for physical and mental effort on the part of the unemployed, of whom there are nearly 3,000,000 at this moment.
      We want the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement of 13th September last year and to repent of his statement of the 28th April this year, and to say that the Government recognise the equity of the Ouse Catchment Board, with their huge rateable value, taking over the responsibility for cleansing and caring for the River Don, and that as an inspiration to the ratepayers throughout the catchment board area he will say that the
      418
      Government is not unwilling to grant them financial assistance if they will carry out the work." The Don Drainage Committee have already expressed their willingness to hand over their powers to the Ouse Catchment Board, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has a resolution passed by the Don Drainage Committee to that effect in his possession. Then the representatives of the Lincolnshire County Council and the colliery owners, as well as the royalty owners, have also undertaken to make a contribution and have agreed to hand their powers over the river Don to the Ouse Catchment Board.
      4.0 p.m.
      If the Ouse Catchment Board express a willingness, as I hope they will, to undertake this responsibility a 2d. rate, which is the utmost they can levy, will collect about £200,000, and if you estimate £20,000 for clerical and other expenses it leaves a sum of £180,000. Therefore, on the basis of the figures supplied by this engineers if the big scheme is undertaken, costing £750,000, the Ouse Catchment Board will not be able to carry out the work under five years. Imagine the anxiety of the residents in Bentley and the farmers throughout the area if for five more years they have to live in uncertainty, always fearing that their efforts will be destroyed when these periodical floods come along. We think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman could help the catchment board, first by making a substantial grant, as generous as Dr. Addison would have given had he had the power. I do not suggest that it is always the best man who gives other people's money away in the largest sum. It is because of 50 years' neglect on the part of Conservative and Liberal Governments that drainage in this country has got into such a very bad way. No words of mine could be more to the point than the words of the commissioners who were appointed by the 1927 Government, and Members who have not read their report should read it. They recommend substantial assistance in certain areas. They recommend, in fact, what the Labour Minister of Agriculture intended to carry out, and what we are appealing for to-day, that the right hon. Gentleman will indicate to the Ouse Catchment Board his willingness to assist them financially to get on with the work, so that this perpetual anxiety may be removed, a very large

      419
      area of tip-top agricultural land brought permanently into production, and so that those small farmers, who work 365 days a year, many of them long hours every day, will know, at all events, at the end of their year's efforts that there will be some result, instead of what they have had for the past three years. Last year they had the mortification of cutting their wheat and watching it flow down the river below Doncaster to Goole. This year there has been a similar experience, and we do not want to see it repeated again. We ask that these farmers and those who are in danger of unemployment through the floods and the men, women and children in the whole area who are constantly in danger, should be removed from future fear. Instead of expressing what is, we know, his very profound sympathy with the farmers and the residents of Bentley, and everybody else, we want something more from the right hon. Gentleman than sympathy. We want action, and we want that action now.
      Mr. MOLSON: I have, on a previous occasion, brought to the attention of the House and the Minister of Agriculture the very disastrous condition of the country round about Doncaster, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has raised the matter again. I think that the Minister of Agriculture is fully aware of the appalling condition not only of Bentley, but also of the agricultural land further down the river. For months now, as I said on a previous occasion, some of us have been pressing upon the drainage authorities who are responsible that there was no time to be lost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, at a time when we were working hard for these remedial measures to be undertaken, and when we were pointing out that the floods had occurred last September, and might very probably be repeated at the same period in the near future, we never anticipated that within so short a time floods would come again, and come in so much more destructive form than they did last September.
      I only wish to urge upon the Minister once more that he will do all that is in his power to bring the Doncaster Drainage Board and the Ouse Catchment Board together, in order that the jurisdiction over the lower Don may be transferred from the Doncaster Drainage
      420
      Board, which with the best will in the world, is without the financial resources necessary for carrying those schemes, to the Ouse Catchment Board, which has a very large rateable area, including the upper reaches of the River Don, from where, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, so much of the water comes which is at the present time flooding Bentley and the agricultural land further down the river.
      In supporting my hon. Friend, as I do, in asking the Government to do all that they can to enable the drainage authorities to carry out this work, I must dissociate myself from him when he asks for a grant from the Government. I am not prepared to ask for my own constituency what I should oppose if it were asked for by some other constituency.
      I was misrepresented the other night— innocently, I am sure—by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions, when he referred to the Members from Doncaster having objected to the London County Council Bill for raising capital sums for the construction of a new bridge immediately after asking for grants for drainage in their own area. Although I have been asked by my constituency and by the local authorities to ask for a grant from the Government, at the present time, in view of the national emergency, I am not prepared to join in asking the Government to make any such grant. I ask that the cost of these, remedial measures should be spread evenly and equitably over the whole of the basin of the Don. It would be grossly unfair if the lower riparian occupiers were called upon to pay the whole cost of carrying out measures which are largely made necessary by waters which come down from the upper reaches. This cannot be called a national problem. It is a local, a Yorkshire problem. I think it only right that I should make this plain. While urging upon the Minister as strongly as I can that he should take all measures necessary, whether by a transfer order or by legislation, to see that the Ouse Catchment Board, the statutory board set up for dealing with these matters, should be enabled to carry out work on the lower Don, as at the present time it is able to do upon the upper Don, I cannot support my hon. Friend in asking for a grant from the Exchequer in the present time of financial stress.
      Mr. LAMBERT: May I express my appreciation of the action of the Opposition in enabling us once more to bring the subject. of agriculture before the House, and may I also congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson)? He has resisted the temptation of spending public money. If such admirable sentiments had pervaded the whole House of Commons for many years, we should not be in such a financial mess as at the present moment. I agree with the hon. Member who moved the reduction that agriculture is a primary industry, and that we shall have to devote more and more attention to the subject in the future. History does not record any nation that has built up on a decaying agriculture. I agree with the hon. Member also in what he said about our food supply. We shall have to grow more food at home. It is quite certain that our export trade has declined largely because of foreign tariffs. If we cannot keep up our exports, we shall not be able to pay for our imports, and therefore it is essential to produce more food at home. It is the imperative duty of the nation to see that our prodution of food is very greatly increased.
      I know it is said—and it rather makes my blood boil—that the farmers are inefficient. Of course, there are good farmers and less good farmers, just as there are good politicians and less good politicians. But farmers, as a whole, are reasonably good business men; they produce the best stock in the world and the finest crops. If I may say so to my right hon. Friend the Minister, he began very well. He began by dealing with horticultural products. He went on to wheat. I am not sure that I agree with the method he adopted, but it guaranteed to a certain number of farmers a stable if rather a low price. But may I point out that he has been actually prejudicing the stock-raising farmer? He has taxed their feeding-stuff, while the stock has to be sold in competition with the world. May I ask my right hon. Friend—I do not know whether it is too much to ask him—whether he could give us the policy of the Government with regard to the stock-raising farmer to-day? Is it rather nebulous? Has he any policy? Has he any idea of what he can tell the farmers who are raising stock, which, after all, is 75 per cent. of the total agricultural product?
      422
      I am speaking in a friendly way. I want the Government not to procrastinate. I want them to have a policy. I do not like their attitude on land taxes. It is a kind of compromise. I assure them that no Government can succeed on compromise. Compromise is fatal to success. I want my right hon. Friend to tell me something of what is being done with regard to the marketing scheme for livestock which was sent to the Ministry of Agriculture a few weeks ago. The Farmers' Union have put in my possession a copy of the document which they sent to the Ministry on 22nd April. I will give the salient paragraph. They ask that
      "In order to encourage the expansion of the livestock industry in this country the Government shall fix a quota representing the proportion of the total consumption of meat and meat products which shall be supplied from home sources."
      Have the Government any policy with regard to that? Do they propose a, quota, and, what is very important to me, will they make a pronouncement that in the forthcoming negotiations the home producer shall have the first preference in the home market? I think that is really vital. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out, in a sentence, the different treatment that has been accorded to the iron and steel industry and the agricultural industry. Iron and steel have Protection at once. The livestock industry is still subjected to competition. My right hon. Friend is going to Ottawa—I wish him all success there —but can he give us some inkling of what is in his mind before he goes? We, as agriculturists, are subjected to very severe Dominion competition. I wish the Dominions well, but, still, my heart beats faster for the home farmer. It is only natural, and we are getting very fierce competition. I drew my right hon. Friend's attention the other day to a case in Devonshire. The Devonshire farmers could not sell their butter owing to New Zealand products coming here. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind at Ottawa?
      The DEPUTY -CHAIRMAN: We had better not anticipate to-morrow's Debate. I would point out that the expenses of the Ottawa Delegation, on which this question ought to be raised, are charged on the Dominion Services Vote and not on the Ministry of Agriculture Vote.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I accept your Ruling, but may I suggest that this matter also affects the Ministry of Agriculture? The Minister is going to Ottawa and will deal there with this very subject. I am trying to keep strictly within the confines of order. In to-morrow's Debate the subject of agriculture may not be brought up, although agriculture will be one of the most important matters to be discussed at Ottawa. I hope, therefore, that I may refer incidentally to the subject, especially as the salary of the Minister of Agriculture is now before the Committee. I will not deal with the subject at great length, but I do think it is in order for me to ask the Minister to give some inkling of what is the agricultural side of Government policy.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see that his remarks are only incidental. The expenses of the Ottawa Conference come up on the Dominion Services Vote and not on this Vote. At the same time I recognise that the Minister of Agriculture has a certain responsibility as the head of his Department. I do not want to have the subjects of to-morrow's Debate muddled up by having them dealt with piecemeal. I hope that any reference to Ottawa will be as brief and incidental as possible.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I appreciate that point entirely. It is because the Minister of Agriculture has special responsibility in this matter that I wish to raise it now. I quite see the point that you must have the Ottawa Debate as clearly defined as possible, but the matter I wish to raise is entirely within the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture and relates to the representation of agriculture at Ottawa. As to the number of representatives that will accompany the Minister to Ottawa to represent agriculture, I notice that the representative selected is one of the most capable and well-informed gentlemen in the House. But I ask the Minister to consider the opinions of the farmers themselves. The farmers ask that there shall be another representative, a practical man, to go with the Minister to Ottawa. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) is not a practical farmer, not in the sense that I mean, for he does not get his living by farming. I am supposed to be a practical farmer, but if
      424
      I had only what I get from farming I would not be in this House. There are capable practical farmers, and I suggest that it would be wise for the Minister to consult these men. I ask my right hon. Friend not to bolt and bar the door against further practical representatives accompanying him.
      Let me now deal with the question of the Ministry itself. In answer to a question my right hon. Friend gave same really startling information as to the growth in the number of officials at the Ministry. In 1913, apparently, there were 659 officials on the pay list. In 1931 there were 1,640. That is a perfectly amazing increase. The salaries in 1913 were £131,500; in 1931 they were £537,000. The number of officials has grown 2½ times and the salaries are "up" something like four times. What can be the reason for this increase of officialdom at the Ministry? This to me is a kind of Socialism, this Whitehall farming. I have no sympathy at all with Whitehall farming. I do not believe that Whitehall ever farms any land at a profit. What are these officials there for? Their number has increased by a thousand and especially do I deplore that fact when I recollect that there are 150,000 fewer labourers on the land. It would be far better to have fewer officials at the Ministry and more labourers on the land. I hope that my hon. Friends of the Labour party will see here how pernicious are Socialism and all this management of agricultural and other affairs by Government Departments.
      Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is only his interpretation of Socialism.
      Mr. LAMBERT: It is my view. I may be wrong. The trouble is that these officials always want to get something to do; they want to find work for themselves. Of course we had it in the last Parliament. We had schemes of land utilisation and large-scale farming. I object to all this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Smallholdings?"] Smallholdings are excellent, but the smallholdings set up during the last ten years are costing the country £800,000 a year. I ask my hon. Friends to concentrate on the one thing which really matters, and that is the price obtained for the farmers' products. The real trouble of agriculture is that the cost

      425
      of production is greater than the price which the product will fetch. I suggest to the Minister that he can dispense with some of his officials. There are, I believe, commissioners for dairying, commissioners for poultry, commissioners for agriculture. I wonder whether any one of these gentlemen has ever taken a farm and made it pay? If there were an examination for these officials at the Ministry, and they were asked whether they had engaged in practical farming and had made it pay for a period of five years, there would be an awful clearance of officials.
      I observe that there is a Welsh Department. It costs £14,939, and the travelling expenses are £3,800. That is £18,700 a year altogether. I happened to have had the privilege last Thursday of being in the beautiful county of Montgomeryshire. I was talking with a county council smallholder, who deplored the fact that he had great difficulty in carrying on. He told me that at Welshpool Market well-bred white pigs, 11 weeks' old, were sold for 8s. 6d. each. I have never known such a price. Would my right hon. Friend the Minister be good enough to put his Welsh Department on to that topic? Will he tell the smallholders how they can make farming pay with such low prices? Hon. Members on the Labour benches have repeatedly made complaints that there are not enough inspectors for agricultural wages. Let me again give them a little practical advice. The best inspector for agricultural wages would be prosperity for the farmers. If the farmers were prosperous they would be able to pay good wages. The best wages board in the world is two masters seeking one man. When two men are seeking one job wages are going to have a very difficult time.
      Labour Members of this House are asking that wages shall be kept up. I have always thought that the agricultural labourer was the worst paid man in the community, although one of the most deserving. But there is an enormous amount of competition in agriculture from Russia. What wages board is there in Russia? Therefore I suggest to Members of the Labour party that if they want to improve the position of the agricultural labourer they should see to it that agriculture is made prosperous, and they can do that only by increasing the price that
      426
      the farmer receives. I have listened with some alarm to some speeches that have been made from the Government Benches. Some Ministers have said, "Well despite this and that, prices have not risen." They must rise. Otherwise we cannot go on. I have drawn the Minister's attention to all these facts. I hope he will be able to give us an indication of his agricultural policy at Ottawa, because it is extremely important. Unless stock farmers can get some word of encouragement I really do not know what will happen. I have never known the agricultural industry so depressed, and I hope the Minister will give the farmer some message of hope this afternoon.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. GRUNDY: I want to bring the Debate back to the question of the flooded areas. I have visited the Don-caster area, and I have come to the conclusion, as any visitor must, that something needs to be done and done quickly there. It is impossible to understand how the Government can withhold assistance. For a few moments I want to speak about another flooded locality, the Rother Valley. There the floods have almost rivalled those in the Doncaster area. In the villages of Treeton, Whiston, Catcliffe, and other villages in the neighbourhood, hundreds of acres of land have been under water. The people's homes have been invaded and they have had to evacuate them. The rural district council has assisted these unfortunate people in a very kind and generous way. It has helped to cleanse and disinfect their houses, and has even assisted them in repapering their rooms. In this particular flooded area hundreds of acres are under water and farmers and allotment holders have suffered very heavily. There are also in that area two large and important modern collieries, the Rother Valley Colliery and the Rotherham Main Colliery. One of them has been in existence for nearly a quarter of a century, and although not much work has been done in that pit for the past three or four years, yet if the good times which we are promised come to us, that is a modern colliery capable of employing 3,000 or 4,000 hands. The rural district council have invited me to attend a meeting which they propose to hold with a view to asking for some Government grant to deal with these matters and I should like the Minister to tell me what he proposes

      427
      to do. I should like to be able to assure that meeting that the Government will be only too pleased to make a grant with the object of avoiding any recurrence of this flooding in the future.
      I cannot now put forward any details of the schemes which are proposed because I have not been informed on them, but I feel confident that any such schemes will be practical ones and I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture will see their way to give a grant to aid these people. Some 10 or 12 miles distant from the area to which I have referred, the River Rother empties itself into the River Don at Rotherham and as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Herbert) is unfortunately absent from the House through illness and as my division borders that area I may mention that in Rotherham itself in the case of one long row of houses the flooding came up to the windows and most of the houses had to be evacuated. The people had to be taken away from these houses in boats. In all these areas both urban and rural roads were rendered impassable by the floods and men had to make detours of two or three miles in many cases in order to reach their places of employment.
      The point which I wish to make, in the first place, to the Minister is that some survey should be made of the River Don and the River Rother with a view to preventing these floods. Surely it is time that some scheme was formulated to prevent the repetition of this flooding every time that we have excessive rains. It is not in the interest of the nation that large collieries such as I have described should be endangered by flooding or that workmen should be cut off from their employment by floods. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take this opportunity of making a definite statement on this important matter and that we shall hear from him that his Department is prepared to make some grant to assist in bringing about better conditions in these localities than those which obtain at the present time, as regards flooding.
      Mr. TOUCHE: In addressing the House for the first time may I ask for that indulgence which is always given to new Members. I hope that the hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the question of flooding in Yorkshire because
      428
      that is not a subject with which I am familiar. I am however very grateful to the Opposition for having chosen a second Supply Day for the discussion of agriculture because I believe that the restoration of agriculture is one of the most vital problems before this nation at the present time. There is no industry the extension of which can do more to help the balance of trade. There is no industry in which more can be done to benefit employment at home, and we should never forget that by far the best market for our manufactured goods is the agricultural land of England.
      As far as arable farming is concerned, I think the Government have made very satisfactory developments. The establishment of a Wheat Quota will prove a great boon to arable agriculture, but wheat only represents about 5 per cent. of the agricultural production of this country. The bulk of our agricultural production is live stock. Unfortunately, when the Import Duties Bill was introduced, the stock-raising industry was entirely excluded from the operation of the Measure. Since then, the matter has been remedied and now the question of duties on meat is within the province of the Tariff Advisory Committee. But I rather gather that the members of that committee do not intend to consider foodstuffs until they have received some directions from the Government, until, in fact, the Imperial Conference has taken place. If that is the case it is very unfair in my opinion to the farmers of this country. They are not to be treated on their merits at once, but their case is to be postponed in order that English agriculture may be used as a sort of bargaining counter at the Imperial Conference.
      I urge upon the Minister the fact that the condition of the stock-raising industry is very nearly desperate. They have been hoping against hope for some security for their markets. There are some who say that no security ought to be given to them until there has been reorganisation. It is quite true that, whereas as regards production, the English farmer is unrivalled, his methods of marketing are less developed than those of some of his Continental rivals. But I do not think it fair to say on account of that fact that the farmer is a bad business man. Any Member who has actual dealings and bargainings with in-

      429
      dividual farmers will find that he may easily come out second best. The position is that the farmer is intensely individualistic. What he produces represents, at any given time, a very small proportion of the total supply, and he stands as an isolated economic unit against the organised forces of middlemen. For that reason we have the unfortuate position that, while the purchaser in the shop may have to pay a considerable price for a commodity, only a small fraction of that price goes to the man who has all the hard work of producing the supply.
      It is also sometimes objected that security cannot be given to the farmer because it will raise the price. I think that argument has been weakened by recent developments. If we take those agricultural commodities which are included in the Import Duties Act such as butter, eggs and poultry we find that since the 10 per cent. duty has been put on, instead of an increase of price there has, unfortunately, been a calamitous fall in price. Then, it might be objected that the Government were not justified in protecting agriculture in all its forms under the mandate which they received at the Election. Nearly all supporters of the Government receive a mandate for a free hand but a large number of Members advocated at the Election a positive policy for the protection of both industry and agriculture. I hope the Government will take care to see that they do not disappoint the Socialist candidates who at the last Election, in every constituency, declared "A vote for the National Government is a vote for food taxes." They omitted, of course, the word "foreign" before "food." I hope the Government will see to it, that although those Socialists candidates were unsuccessful at the Election, they will be shown to have been true prophets in saying that we would get Protection for agriculture as the result of the return of a National Government.
      Major HILLS: It is my pleasant privilege to congratulate the last speaker on an admirable maiden speech. His father, as a former Member of this House, was known to and was a friend of many Members of the present Parliament. We welcome the advent of the son and I think I can speak for the whole House when I prophesy for him a successful
      430
      career in the profession which he has chosen to follow. I wish now to refer to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment. I had the honour of sitting on the Commission from the report of which he quoted and we were all struck with the disastrous results of the want of drainage on a large proportion of the land of this country. That harm occurred in two ways. It occurred in the actual flooding, such as we had in the Don Valley and in other parts of Yorkshire recently—because, incidently, I would remind hon. Members that not only the Don Valley but a very large part of Yorkshire suffered. That is one way in which the lack of drainage damages the land.
      But there is another way, quite as destructive and more insidious, where, through the choking of the main channel, the water level is too high in the floor of the valley, and thousands of acres of land which used to produce good grass or other good crops are going back to reeds and rushes, and where they used to supply a large amount of food for the people all that they do now is to form a sort of swamp; and that is an evil which is increasing very rapidly. Our report was quite definite upon that point. We tried to express it in the moderate and reasoned language of a blue-book, but I think our feelings did show through the moderate words in which they were expressed. There were two requisites in order to put that right. In the first place, you had to sweep away all those old drainage boards which went back to feudal times, whose powers were unknown and whose financial stability was very uncertain, and you had to set up a catchment board for each catchment area. A large amount of that work of machinery was done in the Act of 1930, and boards are established all over the country.
      As far as machinery goes, that is a step in the right direction, but machinery is no good without oil, and in this case the oil that is required is money. The boards have the power to raise money, but in the present condition of agriculture, which is far worse now than it was in 1927, when we reported, it is impossible to expect to raise an adequate sum of money by rates from land which is flooded or liable to flooding. It cannot be done, and either the land must be left to be flooded or some other step must be taken. Dr. Addison, the late Minister of Agriculture, talked

      431
      about a generous grant from the Government. I shall say something about that in a minute, but I want to put it to the Committee perfectly definitely, as my own opinion, that either you must spend money on drainage, or you will have a large amount of land thrown out of use and a large amount of land flooded.
      Of course, in ordinary times you would say that if you drain a man's land, it is improved in value, and that that man, whether he is the landowner or a tenant on a long lease, can very well pay a rate, which will be recouped to him in the extra rent or return from the land. Unfortunately, it is not so, because the return on land is so small and is diminishing so fast that no landowner would spend money on draining his land unless he happened to be a man of means, who could afford to lose that money, and no farmer would care to be rated, because he knows very well that he cannot be certain of getting back that rate in the increased value of the produce of his farm. I think that everybody who has looked at the question recognises that you cannot put a further charge on land, or a general charge on land certainly—in some cases you might be able to do so— because land cannot bear that charge.
      Now, are the State to find the money? Are we, in these difficult times, to ask the taxpayers to find the money to stop the decay which is taking place, the damage to property which is taking place, and the disintegration of a great industry which is taking place? I fully appreciate the attitude taken by my hon. Friend the Member for the Doncaster Division (Mr. Molson), reinforced by that splendid friend of economy, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who, more than any other man in this House, all through his political career has stood for economy. But I suggest a middle course to the Government which, I think, would meet the case and, I hope, would escape the censure of my right hon. Friend below me. It would be, to my mind, a solution, and I believe it would meet with the approval of a large majority of this Committee and, I think, of the country too.
      Why should we not save some of the money that we are wasting on roads and spend it on drainage? We are spending far too much on roads, and roads do not
      432
      create wealth, while money spent on land would create wealth; and money has to be spent on land at some time or another. I wish some hon. Members had been with us on some of those peregrinations that we made up and down England. We came to the conclusion that if we had a war and were compelled to grow our own food, we are now in a far weaker condition than we were in 1914. There is to-day far less potential and far less actual productivity in the soil than there was then, and that condition is getting worse and worse every day. This money will, I believe, have to be spent some day, and when I see the enormous roads that run all over the country, which do not assist the localities through which they run and, in spite of the immense grant which the State gives, will throw an increasing charge on the rates, with no benefit to the ratepayer, I seriously question the wisdom of that policy. I should like to see it all shut down for the moment and the money spent on the far more useful and far more productive outlay of increasing the cultivation of our land.
      Our Commission, in the course of our inquiry, were invited by the Dutch Government to go over and see what they were doing. I daresay the Committee have seen in the Press an account of the enclosing and draining of a large part of the Zuider Zee, and we were shown that work in progress. There a large amount of money was spent by the State upon drainage, and I believe that in the end it will have been spent productively. It certainly is an example that we should bear in mind. I do not think that at the present moment we can afford to spend more out of taxes. I wish we could, but I join with my hon. Friends in thinking that we cannot increase our taxation, and I suggest that the only way is to cut down in some other direction. I believe it will have to be done some time, and I should like to see it done at once.
      One word more. I want to join in the appeal that was made by the right hon. Member for South Molton for some declaration of policy in regard to the stock-raiser. I do not attack or blame the Minister of Agriculture. I know the conditions under which he has to carry on his work, work which we all value deeply, but I ask him to tell the stock-raiser what the Government's intentions are. I do not think he realises the cruel

      433
      position of these men, the terrible uncertainty in which their lives are enshrouded. If there is to be no hope, if we are not to tax foreign meat, why, then, tell them so. I believe that we cannot save stock-raising in this country unless we do tax foreign meat, and I believe that we can do it without raising the price, except to an unappreciable extent. I believe that it will have to be done some time, but whether it is to be done or not, I plead with the Minister to let the farming community know, because it is not fair to keep a whole mass of men in the state of suspense in which they are now. I only ask the Minister to say what he means to do, not what he would like to see done, but I do ask for some announcement as to what is the policy of the Government, and for that, I think, the farming community are entitled to ask.
      Mr. HIRST: It is not my intention to follow the last speaker in his reference to stock-raising, but I wish to say a few words in connection with the flooding in the area which I represent. It has been flooded as often, I think, as any other area in Yorkshire, and is one of the worst areas for floods, with the exception of Bentley. It affects five villages when the heavy rain comes, and apart from the flood times we have hundreds and hundreds of acres of land under water during the bright weather in summer time. This land has been let down, no doubt, by subsidence through colliery workings. I can see out of my bedroom window at home, in looking round the lower lands, hundreds of acres under water, and when you take into consideration that there are six or eight mines round about that district, and that they have taken something like 9 to 12 and 14 feet of coal out below, you can make up your minds that there is going to be subsidence and that something will have to be done to meet it.
      5.0 p.m.
      I remember during the last floods going down into the areas which were flooded. One way, leading on to one of our great collieries, the Houghton Main Colliery, the roads were flooded, the houses were flooded up to the window sills, the water was going in at the front door and rushing out of the back door, and people were living upstairs, but that only took place for about three days. It was not as bad
      434
      as in the Bentley district. The ways leading from Wath up to Bolton-on-Dearne were flooded for some four or five days, and one long row of houses there was flooded for about the same time, and people were living upstairs. For a long time it has been considered that the Doncaster area has not been treated as seriously as it ought to have been. For a number of years it was known that subsidence would take place and that something would have to be done. I have received a letter this morning from the Wath Urban District Council, which says:
      "Our council have from time to time endeavoured in a small way to tackle the problem with a view to protecting their own district, but it would appear that the Land Drainage Act, 1930, has seriously curtailed and possibly destroyed their powers in that direction. Our council in common with others fear that unless some strong motive power is supplied by Government Departments the various drainage and catchment boards will remain costly and useless encumbrances. If on the other hand the statutes under which they operate are defective our council consider that Parliament should amend those statutes as early as possible. It does seem to our council a great pity that such fabulous sums should be paid away annually on Unemployment Insurance Benefit whereas the recipients might do useful work on the rivers of the country if those sums were made available on loan and used for the payment of wages."
      These floods in my district affect six urban district areas, including Darfield, Wombwell, Wath-on-Dearne, Thurnscoe, and Bolton-on-Dearne. All these areas are affected every time there is flooding in that district and we have long since come to the conclusion that something ought to have been done before now. If something be not done, there is no doubt that the floods will become worse and whole villages will become derelict. I hope that the Minister will do his best to make a grant to see that the river beds are deepened and the land is drained. I remember some 20 years ago that in Darfield we had these floods regularly. At that time they widened out two bridges and dredged the river from Darfield Bridge to Broomhill. After that we did not have floods for a long time. Now, however, they have come back to us, and it is evident that the rivers are not dredged as they ought to be. If they were dredged as they were 20 years ago, we should not be subject to the floods that we are having. I hope that the Minister will take into consideration

      435
      what has been said, and will see that something is done speedily.
      Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: Like the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I was a member of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage which sat in 1927, and I should like to stress the urgent importance of attention being paid without delay to this very pressing matter. I like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion that a certain amount of expenditure should be switched over from roads to drainage. I want to refer to another aspect of this drainage question which has not been mentioned, an aspect which, I think, is of great importance. I hope that the Minister will take it into consideration when he sees his way to help those areas which have suffered so much, and are still suffering, from the recent floods. In dealing with the flooding of any river, it is of vital importance to consider the picture as a whole. You may do an enormous amount of damage by clearing some particular tributory in an upland area of flood-water without first of all preparing the channel of the main stream to deal with the increased volume of water. It is a very difficult problem. Anything that is done in the way of improving the drainage in the upland areas adds vastly to the carrying capacity required in the main channel lower down.
      When you deal merely with the water from the streets of towns or the drainage of the Rother or Don, or any of these tributary rivers in order to give local relief, you might do unutterable damage to the Ouse valley lower down. Those who have pleaded for these flooded areas must not think that I am out of sympathy with them when I urge the Minister, in considering the problem, to look at the whole of the Yorkshire Ouse and to take the whole area into his vision and not only the tributary rivers. It is particularly important in the case of the Yorkshire Ouse, because not only is a large area of the Ouse Valley subject to flooding in the ordinary sense, but a large area of its lower reaches is subject to inundation by the sea as well. They thus get an added complication. If you arrange for a great increased discharge of flood water from above into the Ouse without preparing the channel
      436
      to receive it, you will have the sea joining in the conspiracy to aggravate the damage which is done.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hirst) made reference to the dredging which used to take place in the river of his own district, but which has now been stopped. The valleys of our smaller rivers and streams are in many parts of the country liable to flood now in a way which was unknown 20 or 30 years ago, very largely because of the break up of great estates. I could mention many districts where in days gone by a long stretch of some small river or stream passed through lands which were under one control, and it was possible for a staff to be maintained to look after the river. The estates are now broken up and spread about in many hands, no one of whom can maintain the skilled labour for dealing with the river channel; and where a few club together to do so, their work may be rendered ineffective by the failure of somebody down the valley to carry out the same work. This-point merely emphasises the urgency of the problem, but I think that I have said enough to convince the Committee that these problems must not be looked at from a local point of view, but that the whole picture must be taken in mind before assistance is attempted.
      Mr. TURTON: I want to remind the Minister that the West Riding is not the only flooded area in Yorkshire. We in the North Riding have suffered in the last three years from three unprecedented floods. One cannot but feel that all the steps that could have been taken have not been taken, either by the right hon. Gentleman or by his predecessor. I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) on having made a sound suggestion. He expressed the view that it would be wiser to spend money on drainage than upon roads. Last year we spent £15,000,000 upon the maintenance of roads. That sum was directly paid by the Exchequer and excluded the amounts paid by local authorities. In that time we spent £200,000 upon drainage work. This year the only notable decrease in the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture is their expenditure upon drainage. While the whole of the Vote has decreased by £300,000, the amount put aside for drainage work has decreased

      437
      by £181,000. I cannot but think that it is a bad policy at this time to increase expenditure in other branches of agriculture and to decrease it to such a large extent on drainage. There is an increase in the expenditure on the diseases of animals branch, yet there is this large decrease in drainage work.
      There is a particular river which I want to recall to the Minister's memory. We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) about the problem of the Ouse. The problem I have in mind is not directly a problem of the Ouse, but is an appendix to it. It is the problem of the small river Foss. Usually twice a year that river is flooded and carries away the crops of the farmers. With the exception of one year, 1912, nothing has been done to the river. The river Foss is in a peculiar position, because the river bed belongs to York Corporation which has no interest in the agricultural land on each side. As it has no interest in it, it does not take the trouble to drain it, and the river bed has been silting up for 30 years. The problem began in 1890 when the farmers went to the High Court to get some redress, and it has continued until to-day. I would ask the Minister to do what he can to bring the parties in that district to a common agreement so that that river can be put right. At the present we can undertake no coherent scheme for agriculture in the district owing to the recurrence of flooding. The farmers are very anxious to do what they can, should a drainage board be formed, to get the problem solved if York Corporation were willing to pay some quota of the cost, and if the Minister could regard it as a matter of emergency when the river is flooded twice a year, instead of regarding it as an emergency only when a man or woman is drowned. We have here a very vital problem which has lacked attention, and I urge, the Minister to regard it as a matter of emergency in view of the fact that the floods destroy all the crops.
      I want the Minister to remember the position of the egg and poultry producers. Very little has been said about those producers during the last year in this House. They have reached the position to-day where they are being completely driven out of business by the importation of Dutch, Russian and Belgian eggs,
      438
      which are coming in valued at 6s. per great hundred. I do not think that any self-respecting hen can lay eggs at a halfpenny per egg. I think the Minister will agree with me that hens and poultry should be worth more than 5½d. per lb., which is the price at which they are coming in to-day. If nothing is to be done for the industry until after the Ottawa Conference to prevent people from buying foreign eggs, the great mass of small agriculturists will go out of business. These poultry dealers are probably the most impoverished class of agriculturists and many of them are trying the industry as their last hope. We wish the Minister God-speed for his voyage to Ottawa, and we ask him to look after our interests, and not to forget that British agriculture is as important as Empire agriculture. We look forward to his coming back with definite proposals in regard to agriculture, including a duty upon meat and a higher duty upon agricultural produce.
      Major MILNER: I am surprised to hear that the question of the River Foss is still before the attention of the Minister. I have some recollection that his predecessor, only a month or two before he left office, took the matter up very strongly. It is a sad commentary upon the Minister that, after eight or nine months, that matter has not been settled.
      Mr. TURTON: I also took the matter up with the late Minister of Agriculture, 14 months before he left office, and during that time he did nothing to get the Foss cleaned or drained.
      Major MILNER: The hon. Member will forgive me. I said that the matter was put to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor some months before the right hon. Gentleman succeeded him. I know that his predecessor took immediate steps to arrange a meeting between the parties concerned to request the prospective chairman of the Ouse Drainage Board to take up the matter personally, although at that time the board had not been fully formed. It is a matter of regret to me that the matter has not been brought to a successful conclusion ere this.
      On the general question of agriculture, I feel at some disadvantage to-day, because, owing to my absence for some months from the House, I am, perhaps, not acquainted with the full extent of

      439
      the Minister's infamy in regard to agricultural matters. I have done my best to acquaint myself with what has been done, but it may be that I am not fully posted up, so that if I make any comment on the right hon. Gentleman which is not justified, I hope he will accept this explanation as my excuse. I am, however, in a position to compare the position as it was when the right hon. Gentleman took office with the position to-day. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded to an estate that, while it was largely encumbered by an accumulation resulting from a good many years of Tory and Liberal Administration, had yet been laid out by his predecessor, and was ripe for development. The mansion house had its foundations well and truly laid by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and it is a matter of surprise to me to find that the right hon. Gentleman has built only a small proportion of those foundations, namely, on the Agricultural Marketing Act. So far as the remainder of the estate and mansion house are concerned, they are now, to a large extent, in process of going to rack and ruin.
      As to the Marketing Act, I very sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I gather, however, that his doubts are not entirely dispelled. He has hitherto only taken steps to set up reorganisation commissions in regard to two, or it may be three commodities. In the matters of livestock, eggs and poultry, and probably one or two other commodities, the right hon. Gentleman has not yet thought fit to take any action of any shape or kind. If he has, I hope he will be good enough to tell the Committee what action he has taken to set up schemes in regard to those commodities. In regard to a number of other matters, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman may say: "I have left undone those things which I ought to have done, and I have done those things which I ought not to have done." With regard to drainage, that is certainly the case. It needs no word of mine to reinforce the case which has been put forward by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was warned in almost precise terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) as to the consequences of lack of attention to Don
      440
      drainage matters. It is clear that there has been, in regard to that area of the country, a very grave and wilful neglect of the opportunities which the Minister had, and of the duties which were laid upon him under the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
      From an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman about a month ago, in regard to that part of the country, it appears that he is apparently not yet convinced of the necessity of taking action to prevent a recurrence of the disastrous flooding that took place near Doncaster, and of seeing that the same set of circumstances does not arise elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) asked the Minister on 11th May whether he was aware that the bed of the river Neath was so filled up, that any flood caused an overflow and damage to property, and endangered the life of the people, and whether he would cause inquiry to be made and would make a grant to the local authority to have the river dredged. The Minister replied that he was aware that the present condition of the river was causing anxiety locally. He went on to say that his Department had under consideration an application from the county council to make an Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, constituting a catchment board for certain rivers in South Wales, including the River Neath. The right hon. Gentleman added that he could give no undertaking that any grant from State funds could be made available. I should like to ask him now whether he has reconsidered that decision, or whether he is satisfied that further damage will not be caused in that area. I should like also to ask whether he does not think it is the duty of his Department and of the National Government to take steps that are obviously desired by all sections of the House to prevent a recurrence of the Bentley calamity, or of any similar calamity at Neath?
      I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), who, I am sorry, is not now in his place, and to hear his definition of economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley asked the Minister, "When is economy not economy?" and I gathered that, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Doncaster, it was only an economy when it was the National Government which was saving money,

      441
      and that there was no objection to the area concerned—I think he said the whole area of the drainage board— having to find the money. I am at a loss to understand the sort of mentality that differentiates between classes of economy in that way. Drainage is very largely a national problem, and that was the opinion which underlay the passage of the Land Drainage Act, and it is perfectly absurd to expect an area such as the Bentley area, or even the whole area covered by the Ouse Drainage Board, itself to find the whole of the money required to deal with the very serious problem which exists there. My view is that the Government, although they may not have any legal obligation, certainly have a moral obligation, to treat this as a national matter, to come to the assistance of the area and to see that the flooding which caused, and still causes, loss, injury and inconvenience to the masses of the people in those parts, does not occur again. A very great amount of work would be found in that area if steps were taken to prevent further flooding. I am assured that many thousands of men might be employed in that work, and, if for no other reason, it seems a very foolish waste of money to pay a large number of men unemployment benefit and to prevent them from doing this very necessary work of building up the banks of the river.
      5.30 p.m.
      The greatest blot on the right hon. Gentleman's escutcheon is his very grave neglect of the interests of the agricultural worker. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman's policy and that of his predecessor is very marked in this matter. Dr. Addison engaged a number of additional inspectors under the Act regulating wages, and I gather from previous Debates that one of the first acts of the present Minister on coming into office was to dismiss or in some other way get rid of these gentlemen. I gather, also, that the Minister has admitted that very large sums of money were recovered for workers who had been underpaid by their employers. No doubt it is only a small minority of the farming community who are always trying to cut down labour costs, but it seems to me that what the right hon. Gentleman has done is to indicate to them, if only by implication,
      442
      that they may do so almost with impunity, that the Ministry are not now very seriously concerned with that sort of complaint. The fact that the Ministry had these extra inspectors, and were having what were termed "drives" in different parts of the country, prevented farmers from attempting to make deductions from wages who might otherwise have been tempted to do so. Hours, too, I observe with regret, have been extended in many parts of the country, and in respect to both wages and hours I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be subject to the censure of this Committee.
      The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is doing a very great deal for the farmer, and I understand that the House has been assured that wheat growing ought to show a certain profit this year, that the prices of barley and oats will benefit by the duties, that sugar beet growers have been assured of satisfactory prices, and that the dairy industry is not altogether unprofitable; and yet, notwithstanding that position of affairs, the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do anything for the workers in the industry. He seems to be susceptible to every pressure except pressure from the workers. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman in receiving a deputation yesterday, expressed the opinion that had there been a Central Wages Board the position in regard to wages would not have been very different from what it is to-day, when wage reductions are taking place in all parts of the country. I would point out to him that it would be within the power of such a board, strengthened as I suggest, to fix a minimum wage for the whole of the country.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather think the hon. Gentleman is discussing a matter which would require legislation, and he cannot do that in Committee of Supply.
      Major MILNER: I will not pursue that matter further, except to say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the workers would not have been better off even if there had been a Central Wages Board is an indication that he is not disposed to consider assisting the workers in that or in any other direction. The position with regard to wages

      443
      at the moment is such that in places where men from adjoining counties shop at the same shops we find the men from one county with as much as 3s. a week less than those from the other county.
      Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where that is?
      Major MILNER: I am afraid I should have to look it up, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the reference if he will permit me to do so. The right hon. Gentleman, in receiving that deputation from the Trades Union Congress yesterday, made a plea for co-operation with the workers in the industry. How can he expect co-operation if there is not some reciprocation? In my view he has neglected the workers' interests not only in regard to wages and hours but in the matter of tied cottages. I gather that he has not taken any steps to impress upon the appropriate authorities the necessity for putting the Rural Housing Act into force; he has certainly not taken any steps with, regard to unemployment insurance; and he has neglected to make use of an Act of Parliament, the Land Utilisation Act, which occupied this House for many weeks' only a little over a year ago.
      In particular I am sorry that he still persists in refusing to carry into effect the Clauses relating to allotments. Very great help was rendered by the grants made by the Ministry of Agriculture a year ago in providing work on allotments for unemployed men. I am told that although strenuous efforts have been made by the Society of Friends it is very unlikely that it will be possible for those schemes to be carried on during the coming year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider whether it is not possible to make some contribution towards these allotment schemes as a means of assisting in dealing with the problem of the unemployed. In my own City of Leeds a large number of men took up allotments and did their best to cultivate the land, some of which had not been broken up previously. They put in a great amount of work, but now they are having to give them up, because they are not able to provide the seeds or the tools which they were promised would be provided in whole or in part by grants made by the Ministry of Agriculture. One cannot say too much in praise of what the
      444
      Society of Friends have done in this matter. They have tried very hard to carry on the scheme, but it is quite impossible by private munificence in these days to help the large numbers of men requiring assistance.
      The right hon. Gentleman has had, and still has, the greatest opportunity of any Minister to ease the problems with which we are confronted in this country to-day. He has at his disposal Acts of Parliament which, in the considered judgment of this House only a year or two ago, would find work for large numbers of men, but he has done nothing to operate those Acts. He has built upon the structure, as I mentioned in my opening sentences, a mere ugly excrescence of tariffs, the result of which we are not yet in a position to weigh up, but beyond that, apart from the work I have mentioned, he has wholly neglected his opportunities. What he has done has been done in the interests of the farmers and landowners alone, but he has done nothing to assist the farm worker either to preserve his wages, his hours or his conditions, and to that extent we say he is deserving of censure.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member was speaking with his tongue in his cheek when referring to the benefits conferred on agriculture by the late Socialist Government. I think it is a lucky thing that so many of those schemes have not been put into operation. Supposing we had had these large-scale farms, or supposing these hordes of unemployed had been put on to the land on small holdings? What would their position be at the present time? Half the troubles from which the country is suffering at the present time are due to the colossal spending that went on during the two years the Socialist Government were in office. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the cupboard is bare, but who made that cupboard bare? The late Socialist Government.
      Major MILNER: I did not say that the cupboard was bare, but if it is, it certainly is not the fault of the Labour party.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I think the country has judged of that. At the beginning of his observations the hon. and gallant Member referred to two matters which interest us very much in Lincoln-

      445
      shire. He spoke of the Ouse and the Trent drainage areas. They are two of the richest drainage areas in the country. A rate of 2d. in the Ouse area brings in, I think, £160,000, and a rate of 2d. in the Trent area £180,000. In some of the small catchment areas in Lincolnshire a 2d. rate produces only £2,000. We have heard of the terrible situation of many of the farmers and colliery workers in the flooded areas. If the Drainage Act which was passed recently is to be of any use at all, the catchment boards must function. One of the difficulties is that there is no central authority with which they can consult. There is an Association of Municipal Corporations and an Association of District Councils, which are always looking after the interests of those bodies, but there is no central organisation looking after the interests of the drainage authorities, and I suggest that one ought to be constituted on the lines of the Association of Municipal Corporations to watch over legislation affecting their interest to see that it is in order and that it is up to date.
      There are one or two observations I must make upon farming in Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire is a county of large-scale farming, and that certainly is suffering more at the present time than anything else. Large-scale farming cannot be assisted by plans for dealing with only one commodity. People say to us, "Oh, but you have got the wheat subsidy," but I know a farm of 2,000 acres of which only 100 acres can grow wheat, and that not every year. The products of large-scale farming are sheep and pigs, barley and oats, wheat, poultry and so on. In order to assist the large-scale fanner, or any smallholder in the arable and Eastern parts of the country, all those products have to be taken into consideration. Where farmers have done well in the past it was because they had so many irons in the fire; but at the present moment everything is slumping, and they are also faced with large wage bills, although I admit that the wage of the individual labourer is not too much. With such large wage bills large farmers find they are suffering, perhaps, more than the smallholder who works himself and consumes his own products. I venture to suggest to the Government that they have to look at the whole of the products of the industry.
      446
      The Government have made a very good start with horticulture, which will help the small men round the big towns, and they have started the encouragement of poultry. Poultry production in Lincolnshire is bounding up, but it is impeded by the fact that the importations to which reference has already been made are depreciating prices, and the farmers need encouragement in order to carry on. The problem of sheep is one of the hardest with which the Government have to deal, and it is one of the most important to Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire in the past has done well with sheep, because rams have fetched large prices in the Argentine. Rams and Lincolnshire wool have done well, but at the present moment sheep and wool have both slumped, and we ask the Government to bear that fact in mind.
      The question of barley is linked up with that of pigs. If the Government assist the farmers of this country in the production of pigs, that will help the barley grower. If the Government feel that they can limit the importation of foreign pig products, they will find that an enormous production will follow in Lincolnshire, which is close to the barley fields, and in two years' time this country will be able to produce sufficient supplies to take the place of foreign imported pig products. In a short time there will be practically no difference between the quality of the imported pigs and our own, because the farmers now know that the old types of pig, such as the Lincolnshire curly-coated pig, are not suited to modern taste, and they are changing to the large white, so that the Government need have no doubt that, if they will give the necessary encouragement by stopping foreign importations, people in the big towns will not be disappointed in the quality of the bacon products with which they will be supplied. What we are anxious about is the question of time. We cannot hold our herds and our stocks of pigs or finance the day to day husbandry in the Eastern Counties very much longer. I am afraid that, the longer the Government wait, the longer it will take the Eastern Counties to produce what the Government want. Therefore, the message we give to them is, "God speed your deliberations at Ottawa. Carry out the policy which you have in view as quickly as ever you can."
      Mr. PATRICK: I am still very unfamiliar with the procedure of the House, and am not at all sure as to what is in order in this Debate and what is not, but what I have to say will be very general and very brief, so that I hope I shall not exceed the limits. Agriculture at this moment is not only a problem, but an urgent problem, into which the time factor is entering more and more. That is a point which, I will not say this Committee, but the public as a whole rather fail to realise. The man in the street has a pretty shrewd idea of the difficulties of, for example, the mining industry, and he has a good deal of sympathy with Lancashire, but I think that even to-day he still fails to take the farmer very seriously. I fancy that that is a result of the fact that among our oldest established national jokes is the joke that the farmer is always grousing, in season and out of season, whether things are prosperous with him or not. That joke in various forms has made the fortune of a good many comic papers, but it is certainly a very bad joke to-day. The state of farming is really not a joking matter.
      As has been already said, agriculture is one of our most vital industries; it is estimated that not lees than £1,000,000,000 of national capital is bound up in it; and our national agricultural production is actually considerably greater in value than that of any single one of our Dominions. We are apt to think of our Dominions as agricultural producers on a great scale, but, although I myself did not realise it until quite lately, in value we in England grow more than Canada, and actually, I believe more than Australia and New Zealand put together. There is no question about agriculture being a vital industry and there is no question, either, that it is in as desperate a position now as any other of our great industries, even the worst. It is a mistake to generalise too much, but I make that statement on the strength of observations in my own Division, and the district which I represent is typical of a large part of the stock-raising area of the country.
      I have had the opportunity lately of looking through a good many farmers' accounts, and personally I have not the slightest doubt that, if it were possible to organise a really complete and com-
      448
      prehensive balance sheet of the industry at this moment, it would be found that at least half the industry is actually insolvent, and the other half very rapidly going the same way. Indeed, it could not be otherwise, because the costs of production and overhead charges of all kinds, including rates and taxes, are not far from double what they were in 1914, while, on the other hand, the prices that the farmer gets for his products, in my part of the country at all events, are down practically to the pre-War level. The farmer did not make an exaggerated profit before the War, and, in view of these figures, it is obvious that now he cannot be far away from bankruptcy. It is impossible for the farmer to make both ends meet on this basis. I know that hon. Members opposite attach great importance to better organisation, better marketing, and more co-operation, and I, for one, thoroughly agree with them that these things are of the first importance, but I wish they would also agree with me that the best organisation and the greatest amount of co-operation in the world will be of no use if the end of it all is merely to arrange that the farmer sells below cost price.
      To discern the causes, no particular knowledge either of economics or of farming is needed. The first cause which is responsible, perhaps as much as anything else, for the present state of things, is the industrial depression—something which is outside agriculture altogether. Obviously, the state of the industrial towns has weakened prices and lessened demand, and the farmer is suffering. It is an obvious platitude that agriculture will never be really prosperous at a time of industrial depression; and the converse is equally obvious that a depressed agriculture will be of no use for the purpose of assisting struggling industry. A great deal has been said in the House during the last six months as to the possibility of industry being relieved by the absorption of surplus labour by agriculture; but that cannot be effected at the present moment, when agriculture itself is in a desperate state. Like the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, I am a firm believer in a forward policy with regard to smallholdings, but I know that to attempt a policy of that kind on a large national scale, such as would be required in order to afford any real

      449
      relief to industry at the present moment, must be a ruinous failure; it cannot be otherwise. If an experienced farmer, with knowledge and a little capital left, cannot live and make both ends meet, surely it stands to reason that a smallholder without that experience and capital will find things harder still. Before we develop a smallholdings policy on a large scale, we must have better times for agriculture.
      It would be out of order, I think, to discuss the subject of industrial depresson further, and it would also be out of order to say very much on the subject of monetary policy, but I think I am entitled to refer to it briefly, because it has been implied in this House more than once that the solution of the troubles of agriculture, and of most of our other troubles, is to be found by raising prices to the 1929 level, and doing so by manipulating the currency, that is to say, by controlled inflation. It is true that, if agriculture could get back to the prices of 1929, it would benefit enormously, but only on one condition, and that is that the prices of manufactured goods did not rise at the same time and to the same extent. But the trouble of agriculture, and of the world in general to-day, is not the absolute low level of the prices of primary products, but the gap between those prices and the prices of manufactured articles. What is wanted is, not to raise all prices together, but to reduce the gap between these two classes of commodities, and personally I feel doubtful whether it would be possible to reduce that ruinous gap, at any rate for very long, merely by manipulating the currency. I think, therefore, that the farmer has nothing much to hope for from a policy of inflation.
      6.0 p.m.
      There is another difficulty that he has to face. The other immediate cause of his critical position to-day is external competition, which, by general consent, Is more acute and difficult to cope with than ever it has been before. It is not only the British farmer who finds himself in such a plight to-day; the same is true of the Argentine, and, for that matter, of the Australian, the Canadian and the New Zealand farmer. The difficulty for them is that this country is their most important market in the world, and, naturally, they make every effort to retain their preference in our market. In
      450
      addition, Soviet Russia has lately come on to the map, so to speak. It is her policy and her system to allow her agricultural products to be sold at prices below—often considerably below—world prices, and that, without doubt, has been an important factor in bringing the world prices of primary products down to their present ruinous level, so that we are in a sort of vicious circle. Luckily, so far as this country is concerned, external competition is about the one agricultural difficulty with which the Government are able to deal directly, and their policy hitherto has been directed towards that end. I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee by going point by point over what has been done already by the Government; it is familiar to everyone. Most of the Measures which have been introduced have been opposed by hon. Members opposite on the ground that they involve a contribution from the rest of the community for the benefit of agriculture. In theory, perhaps, they do, at any rate to begin with, involve some slight contribution, but in my opinion that contribution is money well spent. In the long run in the national economy it will repay itself handsomely with interest, since it will make for greater stability, greater prosperity and better health. In one or two respects it has failed to fulfil what the right hon. Gentleman intended that it should do, and that through no fault of his own. Neither he nor any other Minister could have foreseen the continued fall in the price of agricultural produce that has gone on ever since the beginning of the year, and has resulted in a part of the policy, at any rate, being inoperative. I refer to the 10 per cent. duty on poultry and other products. It was partly for revenue purposes, no doubt, but it also had a protective element in it, and, as far as the second part is concerned, the tremendous drop in world prices has made the protective element completely inoperative. As far as the home producer is concerned, it is of little value or no value. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not consider, if only as a temporary measure before Ottawa, somewhat raising the level of the duty.
      I should like to offer a more serious criticism on the policy as a whole, and that is the very big gap that is left in it

      451
      by the omission to deal with the products of stock-raising. The vast majority of enlightened farming opinion will agree that the backbone of English agriculture has been in the past, and must continue to be, the production of meat. Our climate and our soil, and our experience in raising the best grade of stock fit us for it and indicate that that is our main line of business. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Even at this time, when the economics of agriculture are turned upside down, we still manage to produce just upon half of our consumption of meat. I know the difficulties involved. First of all, there is the question of Ottawa. Naturally, no final decision can be taken before that Conference, and it will be no easy matter to arrive at an equitable solution of it. It is a platitude that our greatest bargaining counter for the Dominions is a share in our meat market. I have mentioned the rather surprising fact that, although that is our best bargaining counter, we ourselves are greater producers, in value, of food than any of the Dominions. That throws a light on the problems that our delegation will have to face at Ottawa. Whatever solution is arrived at must be in the nature of a compromise.
      The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cadogan): If the hon. Member had been here earlier, he would have heard a Ruling from the Chair that any allusion to Ottawa must be only incidental.
      Mr. PATRICK: There is another aspect of the measures that can be taken to assist stock-raising. The Government have already announced their pig policy and, in theory at least, most farmers will agree that it is a satisfactory one. Farmers ask me, "If the Government can adopt that policy in respect of bacon, why do they not do so at once in respect of other forms of meat?" and that is a very difficult question to answer. I know the difficulties of the problem. The stock-raising industry is on a very much larger scale, is much more widely scattered and much more varied than the section of the industries that produces bacon only, and the interests of the consumer have to be very carefully studied. But none of these are insuperable difficulties. The stock-raising industry prepared a scheme and laid it before the right hon. Gentleman, and I would urge
      452
      him with all the force I can, if it is not suitable, to revise it or adopt one of his own and have it ready to put into force at the earliest practicable moment, immediately after Ottawa or as soon as the House meets again. The stock-raiser cannot wait much longer.
      Mr. PRICE: The hon. Member referred to the mining industry. I should like to assure him and the Committee that no one is more interested in the future of British agriculture than are the miners. Many of us for years have been members of allotment and smallholdings associations and of county agricultural committees, urging and hoping that the country would see its way in the near future to develop the land far more than it is developed now, and it is because we are interested that we are moving this reduction of the Vote. I want, first of all, to say a few words on the drainage position in the Doncaster district. I was for a time a member of the drainage committee. I think it will be admitted, even by the Minister, that the authority that is dealing with the drainage of that district has neither the powers nor the financial position to enable it to deal with the position that has arisen in the Don Valley. It means, therefore, that, if drainage in the Doncaster district is to be dealt with efficiently, its powers must be transferred to the Ouse Catchment Board, which can deal with it, and ought to be dealing with it, because it is at that end where the difficulty is. I see no reason at all—I am surprised at the statement of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson)—why anyone should put any obstacle in the way of some national financial help in a position of this difficulty. I see in this report that provision is made for financial assistance in case of emergency. There can be no greater emergency, surely, than what happened in the Doncaster district three or four weeks ago when we had 4,000 people homeless, many of whom have not got back yet, and a tremendous amount of damage which it will take a long time to overcome.
      Unless something is done before long, other areas towards the Western portion of Yorkshire will be affected. I live seven miles from Doncaster where the River Don passes, and the position was so serious three or four weeks ago that, for the first time in my life, we had houses

      453
      flooded seven miles from Doncaster and we had to bring out of the low-lying districts five or six families whose furniture was floating in water six feet deep. It is evident that something must be done, and surely a case can be made out for some financial help from the Treasury. I opposed one or two of the Clauses of the Doncaster Drainage Bill in the Committee because I have always maintained —and I think it is a fair position to adopt —that people living in low-lying districts ought not alone to be liable for the financial provisions of a drainage scheme that may deal with miles of drainage on the high summits further away. All ought to make some contribution, and not only those directly affected by floods. The Doncaster District Drainage Board was in that position. The only people upon whom they could levy a rate were the people who were directly affected. It is not fair to put a definite financial responsibility on me because I live in a low part of the valley that receives drainage water coming from the hills. This is not dealing with the drainage of land as such. It is dealing with a river. It is one of those cases where some financial assistance should be given from the Treasury and, unless it is fothcoming, I am afraid the drainage authorities are going to have very great difficulty. I appeal to the Minister to do what he can to speed up a remedy for the tremendous danger and difficulty which now confront the people in that area.
      Coming to the other part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, we criticise it from many points of view. First of all, there is no provision for the development of allotments. I receive letters from districts in the West Riding appealing for something to be done for the unemployed, as was done a year or two ago, In the provision of allotments and of seed for the cultivation of food. Surely, that is one of the things that the Minister ought to encourage. The development of smallholdings is getting very little support or sympathy. The smallholder to-day is not in the position he was in a few years ago, but I attribute that in many cases to bad marketing. We have been told that something ought to be done for the breeding fraternity. If you take the price of British meat—beef, mutton or pork—
      454
      in the retail shops, is it not fair to asume that, if they were the basis on which the farmer was paid, he would get a fair profit and the breeder would get a fair profit? I frankly admit that I never buy foreign meat if I can afford to buy English meat, and I do not think that many people buy foreign meat if they can afford to buy English.
      Sir J. LAMB: You do not know; that is the trouble.
      Mr. PRICE: The trouble is the high price which I have to pay for English meat. I am certain that if the breeder got a fair share of the money, he would be able to secure a living wage. It is a matter of marketing. We have said from these benches that if the farming community generally, those engaged in horticulture, in stock-breeding and in poultry farming, would only organise themselves into proper marketing areas, and take full advantage of the provisions of the Marketing Act, they could supply goods to our mining villages and our towns at such prices as would enable them to obtain a living wage.
      Another point which we impress upon the Government in the interests of the future of British agriculture is that the time has come when the question of land rent should be looked into. I remember in 1925 when we were dealing with the new De-rating Act coming to a conference in London at which it was suggested that unless there was some safeguard for the farmer when de-rating came about, the landlord would get the benefit by means of increased rent. It was admitted by a very eminent agriculturist that that sort of thing had already taken place, and that many farm rents had been increased by landlords taking advantage of their tenants owing to the De-rating Act. The National Government, which the Minister of Agriculture represents, have been talking for some time about equality of sacrifice. If British agriculture, is to be put upon its feet—and there is no one in the House of Commons more prepared to give assistance in every shape or form than the party on this aide of the Committee if only something is done on proper lines to reorganise agriculture—the landlord ought to make his contribution to the sacrifice. I took part in the purchase of some land for the West Riding Agricultural Committee some years ago when the price which was paid proved in-

      455
      evitably that agricultural land in this country is dearer than similar land in any other country in the world. I do not know why it should be so. In any future reorganisation of British agriculture land rents ought to be taken into serious consideration.
      I trust that the Minister will give consideration to the points we have raised and, as a matter of urgency, deal with the problem of drainage at once, and, as a matter of policy, place into the hands of the unemployed the freedom and liberty which they enjoyed three years ago in the development of allotments. I am sure that it would be very much appreciated. We may not know much about the technical details of British agriculture, but many of us are beginning to feel that hundreds of men who are now being stopped from working in industry will, sooner or later, have to find employment as a result of the intensification of the agricultural policy of this country. When we realise that only one-seventh of our population is working in agriculture, there is a large amount of room for intensification and development. If the Minister will give consideration to the matters which we have raised, he will find that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be prepared to give him every possible assistance.
      The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): If I intervene at this stage for a few moments, the Committee will, I hope, forgive me and realise that they can continue the discussion. I think that the Committee will agree that I could not say anything at this moment without making a reference to the tragic loss which we have suffered in the death of Sir Donald Maclean, the President of the Board of Education. The Government will, of course, take the earliest opportunity of paying that suitable tribute which, I am sure, Members in all parts of the Committee would desire should be given. The Committee will realise the deep sorrow with which I and those who have been colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, and who have had the privilege of his friendship for a number of years, heard the sad news.
      This Debate—the second day on which the Committee have discussed these Estimates—is one which I frankly welcome. It is, I hope, another indication of the
      456
      awakening interest of Members in all parts of the House, reflecting, I believe the interest awakening in all parts of the country in one of its great basic industries. Too long it has been thought that there is a diversity of interests between industrial and agricultural affairs. Entrusted for the time being with the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture in England and Wales, and co-operating with my colleagues in Scotland, I am very conscious of the helpful criticism which has come from time to time from all quarters of the House.
      To-day, the main part of our time has been taken up with the problem of the very serious flooding which has occurred in many quarters of the country. Some hon. Gentlemen have said that I am open to a measure of reproach because I succeeded to an estate which was founded securely by my predecessor, Dr. Addison. It is true that I succeeded to an estate, but it was an estate in financial stress and difficulties, which fact I was bound to recognise. It has been my painful duty to say quite frankly, not only in regard to drainage, but practically in regard to every other aspect of the work to which we desire to put our hands, that we must take cognisance of that financial condition. It is no good either in respect of the problem of drainage or of any other part of the problem of agricultural administration unless we recognise the very patent facts. The history of drainage in this country goes back for a very long period. The Committee will well remember that we discussed this matter at considerable length and passed legislation in 1930 in an endeavour to bring together a number of small drainage authorities, and to set up throughout the country catchment boards to deal with the problem of flooding on a fresh basis.
      The Land Drainage Act received the Royal Assent on 1st August, 1930. There were something like 47 rivers set out in the Schedule of the Act, and catchment boards had to be set up to deal with those different areas. The constitution of a catchment board under the Act certainly necessitated advertisement, and it required considerable time to set the machinery going. The first catchment board was set up on 3rd November, 1930, and the last on 12th October, 1931. Actually the first meeting of any catchment board was held on 16th December,

      457
      1930. The catchment boards were, therefore, in operation at some time through the year 1931, but of course most of them found themselves responsible for very considerable new duties. They had, in fact, to review the position and to take cognisance of great fresh areas, and try to formulate in their minds how they were to deal with the big main rivers, and, indeed, how they could properly, having surveyed the problem, make schemes and plans which would be effective.
      6.30 p.m.
      I was very glad to hear some hon. Members, in speaking upon this subject to-day, emphasise the fact that in dealing with the problem you might do an infinity of harm by adopting a scheme if it was not a well-thought-out and coordinated scheme. While those who come directly from seriously devastated areas, as do some of the hon. Members who have spoken to-day, must feel impatient and anxious about the problem, do not let us be carried away too fast in criticism of this kind. Let us realise that this is a problem which, if it is to be well done, must be carefully considered, and also remember the plain and patent fact that the inheritance into which the catchment boards have come is an inheritance of neglect in one form or another over a very considerable period of time, and obviously it must take a good deal of time in order to deal with it. In regard to the most serious and typical case which has been put here to-day, that of the flooding in the Don Valley and neighbour-hood, I appreciate very much indeed the attitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). He said, frankly and courageously, that while he realised and desired to impress upon the House the necessity of dealing with this problem, he recognised the difficulty of the financial position in which the country is placed. I am going to receive shortly a deputation consisting of those who are responsible for the Ouse Catchment Board, the Trent Catchment Board and the Doncaster Drainage Board with the object of discussing with them, in the most practical manner we can, what is best to be done to try to solve this difficult problem. But I must say to the Committee, that whatever that solution may be, the unkindly fact still remains very patent and clear that such assistance as can be given is small and
      458
      circumscribed, because for financial reasons I have not the money to dispose of. On the other hand, through all this trouble we have placed at their disposal the services of the officials of my Department and other Departments. I am satisfied that the officers from the Ministry of Agriculture who have been in the area have done their very utmost to help and advise and assist, and I am not unhopeful that, as a result of this conference, we may see some possibility of progress being made. One of the practical difficulties is whether certain powers and regulations which at present exist can be transferred. It will be unfortunate if we cannot find some common measure of agreement which will lead to the better co-ordination of these authorities. To that end I shall endeavour to assist. I do not know what that may necessitate. It is possible that it may require some measure of legislation in the future. If so, it is obvious that that legislation cannot be introduced immediately, but if and when it comes, and it is an agreed Measure, I hope that I shall be able to rely upon the co-operation of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
      Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman is not forgetting the question of subsidence and the co-operation of the Ministry of Mines?
      Sir. J. GILMOUR: Those who know the district are very well aware that a great part of the difficulty is due to the effect of subsidences, and that you cannot remove the water except by pumping. That has accentuated the trouble very considerably.
      Several hon. Members have passed from the problems of drainage and floodings to deal with the more general aspect of agriculture. This is not the occasion on which anything other than a passing reference can be made to the Ottawa Conference. All that I will say is that the Government and I are fully alive to the necessity of ascertaining agricultural opinion, whether in this House or outside, so that we may be efficiently guided in the policy which we pursue when we go there. In the administration with which we are concerned to-day, as I said on the last occasion when this Vote was discussed, the Government have set up certain commissions to deal with some aspects of agriculture. The hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel

      459
      Heneage), speaking of the problem of agriculture in his part of the country, said that to him the important question was that of poultry, sheep, barley and pigs. I think I may claim that the Government have not been blind to the necessity of dealing with the problem of barley. On the one side there has been imposed a duty which is so administered that it falls with greater severity upon the brewing and malting quality, and as a less heavy burden upon the feeding portion of barley.
      The commission to deal with pig and pig products has a very close association with the problem of barley. I recognise and appreciate the anxiety of those who are in the pig industry and the feeling they have that the prices which they are obtaining for pigs at the present time are so low and so bad that they are even induced in certain parts of the country to slaughter breeding sows; but I would say, in all seriousness, to the farming community that, difficult a problem as the present position is, this is not the moment in which that policy of slaughter should be pursued. There is held out a real hope as a result of the commission and of the conversations and negotiations. The Government are under a definite pledge to deal with the problem, and I do earnestly plead that there should be less talk of the slaughter of sows, and more attention paid to trying to wait a little time, with the sure and certain pledge that this problem is going to be dealt with. In the administration of my Department, owing to the financial stringency, the encouragement of the breeding of stock and steps to help forward meat producing in this country, have had to be curtailed. Is it not true to say that by far the most certain help which can come to those who, like myself, are humbly trying to breed and rear stock of good quality and suitable for the market, is in the recovery of the industrial position of this country? I was glad to hear from more than one hon. Member who spoke to-day that in the great industrial centres, whether in the mining centres or in the factory districts, there is a desire and an inclination on the part of all our people to buy home meat rather than foreign meat. I am well aware of that, and the surest and most certain hope for the
      460
      stock-breeder in this country is to get the wheels of industry going.
      Those who are in the sheep industry are well aware of the fall in prices and the difficulties which we have to face. We are doing our utmost by the commissions in regard to milk and pigs. I think we could get a very great measure of assistance from the farming community if they recognised that there are too many classes of breeds; whether of pigs, cattle, or sheep. I am not one of those who would say that we should not have a variety of breeds; far from it, because we have climatic conditions and hill districts and lowland districts where different classes of stock do better in one place than in another; but I am convinced that those who are the leaders of agriculture at the present time, whether they be directors of our great shows or our small shows, can do something to help in guiding the farming community to breed and rear the proper class of stock. I visit agricultural shows and come away with some feeling of despondency at times, because I see the dissipation of energy in the numbers of our breeds, particularly in pigs. I come away with some feeling of despondency also, because I see animals winning prizes in the show ring that are too fat for breeding purposes. I am speaking in this House on a subject like this at the present time because I am conscious of its importance.
      The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said that he did not believe in Whitehall rule of agriculture. Nor do I. All that Whitehall can do is, through this House and by the provision of certain money, to direct, help and assist. The practical work must be done outside. I am criticised, and I do not resent criticism, but I am justified in saying to my agricultural friends and neighbours outside that at this time more than any other they could, through those who frame the rules of their exhibits and lead the discussions in their clubs or elsewhere, do a great deal to help the industry as a whole by wise advice and guidance on the problems that I have mentioned. This Debate will be continued. I can assure hon. Members that my only desire is to be of true service and assistance to the industry in which we are all concerned. The House can help me with their criticism and their

      461
      advice, and I hope that no Member will hesitate to come to the Ministry and see those officials who deal with the particular problem in which they are interested, whether it be land drainage, the breeding of stock, or any other subject. I can assure the Committee that I have listened with the greatest interest, and I hope with instruction, to the Debate as far as it has gone.
      Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In regard to the deputation from the Doncaster and Ouse Catchment Boards, the right hon. Gentleman suggested the possibility of a Bill. Do we understand him to maintain the position of 13th September or of 25th October with regard to the possibility of any Government assistance in such a case as is known to be an exceptional and emergency case?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member must be aware that my Estimates provide only a limited amount of money, and the decisions which were taken by the Government which took over from the late Labour Administration still obtain. I cannot hold out a hope of large grants from public funds.
      Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I agree with the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the breeding of pigs, and we heartily accept the announcement, the pledge that he intends to assist this branch of agriculture. There is no doubt that we have too many breeds of pigs; there are 17 or 20 different kinds. To my mind, only two varieties are necessary, one which will produce the best quality of bacon with the smallest consumption of food, at the earliest age, and the other a pig for killing for consumption as fresh meat. Breeders should concentrate on these two varieties instead of going in for a lot of side issues, as they are at the moment. I believe that a breed of short-nosed pig is much in favour in some parts of the country, and they have developed it until the poor pig has practically no nose at all. I am sure that it is no better for bacon purposes—probably it is far worse. Breeders should not develop these idiosyncrasies, but should produce animals which will give the best meat for consumption as food.
      I rose more particularly to speak on the question of land drainage. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T.
      462
      Williams) sometimes agrees with me, and sometimes disagrees. In this case he has criticised the action of the Government because they have not efficiently drained certain flooded areas in Yorkshire, and he pointed out the agricultural loss which has followed the lack of drainage. I must remind him that when the Land Drainage Bill of 1930 was under consideration in this House, I was its unofficial opponent through all its stages, and I am very pleased that the hon. Member to-night has joined me in my solitary opposition and criticism as to the effectiveness of that Measure. The Land Drainage Act sets up large catchment area boards—the whole country is included in one or other of these catchment boards—whose function it is to cleanse the main channel of the main river. During the passage of the Bill it was said that if they functioned properly, all the main rivers of the country would be properly cleansed and that there would be no more flooding. I criticised the Bill and said that I did not think it would have that effect; and it has not. Therefore, my criticism was fully justified. Let me give one reason why the Act has not been as effective as it might have been. Before a catchment area board can function, it must have a revenue with which to do its work, and the Act gives the board two forms of revenue. One is a precept on the county council rates and the other a precept on the internal districts within the catchment area. The precept on the county council rate is limited to 2d. in the £, but there is an unlimited liability to be carried by the internal districts in a catchment area, which, of course, include agricultural land. The hon. Member for Don Valley referred to the loss which agriculture had suffered from floods. Is he aware that this unlimited liability on internal districts in a catchment area penalises agricultural land?
      Mr. T. WILLIAMS Mr. T. WILLIAMS indicated dissent.
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: Surely the case is this; that any expenditure by a catchment area board which is not met by the £d. rate on the county council must be met by the other partner, that is, the internal districts in the area, upon which there is an unlimited liability.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Member must know that until the passing of the 1930 Act the main carrying drains

      463
      of the country were severely neglected. All the rates which a catchment area board levy on uplands at present are in addition to any money expended in the past, so that internal districts get through the catchment area boards assistance which has not hitherto been available.
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I must remind the hon. Member that the internal districts bore the whole of their expenditure themselves; and they were the body which administered these expenses. To-day the catchment area board is composed of a majority of representatives from the uplands and a minority from the internal districts. That is, the majority represents the uplands with a limited liability of 2d. in the £ while the minority represents the area with an unlimited liability. Therefore, the majority of the board, when they proceed with any operation, do so knowing that they have a liability limited to 2d. in the £ whereas the minority, who are unable to voice their opinions, have to carry an unlimited liability. I suggest that it is rather an unjust burden to put an unlimited liability on to the internal districts, and therefore on to agriculture. The purpose of any land drainage operation is to make the cultivation of crops a paying proposition. Rates that are paid for land drainage can be assumed to be an insurance against loss by water, but it is possible that the premiums for such insurance may be too large. It is possible that the tax which has to be paid by the internal districts for safety from flooding may be too large in proportion to the value of the crops. It may be that the destruction by water of the crop to which the hon. Member for Don Valley referred was the cheapest way in which to get rid of it. It may have been that the value of the crop in the market would not have equalled the cost of harvesting and threshing it. Possibly the flood did that farmer a great deal of good.
      Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Why not pray for a flood and universal destruction of crops?
      Sir E. SHEPPERSON: The correct method is to make the growing of these crops a paying proposition; and I can assure the Minister that there will be no difficulty about the drainage of land
      464
      in any part of the country if, when it is drained, the crops grown upon it will pay. I have been connected during the whole of my life with an area of this country which is not 21 feet above but three feet below sea level, and in the past that land has always been drained by the local authority, not at the expense of the State. It is only recently when this dangerous and infectious disease of trying to exploit the national exchequer for everything is prevalent that this system has been altered. Until quite recently the land was drained by the locality; and very efficiently. Why? Because the crops at that time were a paying proposition. And there will be no difficulty with regard to land drainage if the growing of crops is made a paying proposition. No land drainage authority would desire to come to the State and ask for a subsidy if when the land was drained it produced a crop which paid the grower. The agriculturist has no desire to be a parasite on the community. If the crops grown will give him a return he is prepared to carry out his own drainage operations, and will do it effectively. I suggest to the Government that the first thing to do de to make agriculture pay, and these other things will follow.
      Mr. TINKER: In the first place, I should like to refer to the passing away of the President of the Board of Education and to say how deeply we regret to hear the news of his death. He was one of the most charming and sincere men in this House, and we are deeply sorry that he has passed from our midst.
      7.0 p.m.
      I am Very glad at the turn the Debate has taken, and I was very pleased to hear the Minister say at the end of has speech that notes will be taken of any suggestions made in his absence, and that they will be considered. I was also pleased when he said that he was going to take certain bodies into consultation about floods, but I was most pleased to hear him say that he was going to work in association with the Minister of Mines. This question of flooding is daily brought home to anyone who lives in mining districts. We take the mineral from underneath because it is needed in the national interest, and we forget the damage which we do to the surface. After a short time one sees in every mining area great depressions and large heaps, usually

      465
      called dirt heaps, where the residue picked out from the coal is stacked in big heaps. If something had been done to level those heaps as the dirt came out of the shaft and to fill up the depressions, it would have restored the land as it was originally, and have been of great benefit to the country. But no one has paid any attention to that aspect. The policy has been one of grab and of getting all that is possible out of the land. The result now is that we are faced with all these difficulties, with these floods and these depressions. Many of the villages in Yorkshire appear to me worse than the battlefields of France; they are a greater disfigurement than the battlefields with their shell-holes and trenches.
      I have had a picture sent to me from Bentley showing a flooded inland lake almost similar to one we have in Leigh, which I represent, which is called the Flash. It is an inland lake about a square mile in extent, which has been caused by a mining subsidence. Attempts have been made to get it to flow into the River Irwell, but it has not been found possible to divert it, and at the slightest fall of rain it overflows on the roads and into the houses and people have to get out until the fine weather comes again. Then, when the rainy weather returns, we again have flooding and the same difficulties. If this Debate brings some recognition of what is happening and we can get some understanding between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Mines in order to deal with these problems, it will have a very good effect. I realise that it will be a most difficult matter to deal with. There is a saying that things are bad now but they can become worse, and that applies to this case. Unless dealt with, matters will gradually get worse. We are glad to know that some attempt is being made to tackle this enormous problem.
      I agree with the hon. Member who stated that, if ever we got into difficulty again and these shores were again attacked by any foreign foe, our food supply would be a matter of enormous importance. He pointed out that we were worse off now than in 1914 and every one knows the great difficulty we had in trying to meet the emergency then. Even if that emergency does not recur, mining is being reduced and we have to turn our attention in other directions. Agriculture
      466
      is one of the matters to which we ought to pay greater attention. When we dispute with hon. Members opposite on these questions, it is because we differ as to the best method, and not because we do not want agriculture to succeed. We think that in. the past those connected with agriculture have not taken the right steps and we are anxious now in a time like this to see what is the right thing to be done for this great industry. As the production of coal decreases, as it is bound to decrease with the introduction of other forms of power, so some attempt should be made to get back to the position of England in by-gone times. We have got to get back to the land. Both mining Members and agricultural Members know the difficulties in their own localities. It has been a calamity which has brought these questions before the House of Commons. If it had not been for the Bentley flooding, this matter might have gone on year after year until some bigger catastrophe occurred. If this catastrophe brings good results, it will be one of those disasters which bring advantages in their train.
      Mr. BUTLER: One of the interesting features of this Debate is the way in which industrial find agricultural Members are being gradually brought together on agricultural matters in the face of tragedy. I hope that to-day's Debate will mean that we shall be able to help those who suffered in the recent floods and that agricultural and industrial Members will continue to work together for the future of England as a whole. I have, unfortunately, been absent for four or five months owing to work in India. I have now returned to find in North Essex a position which is increasingly serious and very grave. I have come back to find farmers facing even more serious difficulties than before. While I have been away, I have done my best to follow the policy of the Government with regard to agriculture and, on reading over those declarations which we all make to our constituents at election time, I was very gratified to find that a great many of our claims at the election have already been fulfilled in this short time by the National Government. I would like to pay my tribute to the Minister for the way in which he and his Department have worked in that period so that we can say that the majority of the matters raised at election time have

      467
      already come up on the Floor of the House. The Horticultural Products Act has been of definite benefit to the glasshouse industry at Stansted and other places in my own district. In the few weeks since I have been back, I have taken the trouble to ascertain the facts from those concerned. The Wheat Quota Act had been advocated for many years since the repeal of the Corn Production Act. We have always heard in agriculture the complaint that wages were fixed and that prices were not. That was a genuine grievance of the agricultural community. Many of us worked in the last Parliament and many of us have worked in this Parliament to see that something should be done for wheat. We have at last achieved the Wheat Quota Act, and we should be grateful to the Government for having passed it.
      I am purposely mentioning these facts because I find, as is often the case, that those Measures which have been passed are not mentioned to a Member when he returns from abroad, but that the grievances and troubles of the moment are exclusively put before him. I have had countless letters since my return pointing out the difficulties of conditions at the present time, and only a few pointing to the things which the Government have achieved, and to those pledges which the Government have implemented since the election. We cannot hold ourselves responsible for world conditions, and it is a striking fact that the agricultural countries of the world and the agriculture of different countries have suffered more than anything else in the present great world economic depression. We should recognise that, although times are bad, the single administration of a single country has done its best to face the agricultural problem, and that there is more to come, about which you, Mr. Chairman, with your usual discretion, would forbid me to talk, as it would entail future policy and future legislation. Agriculture has also benefited, as far as I can see after my short absence, from the Import Duties Act.
      I wish to reply to my friend and colleague in India who raised the question of rural housing and who regretted that more had not been done. In the last five or six months, since the inception of
      468
      the task of the National Government, I have seen very remarkable progress made under the Rural Housing Acts in the housing of one district, which I mention particularly, that of the Bumpstead Rural District Council in the North of Essex. It has gone ahead in a most remarkable way in the housing of the people. I should like to pay a tribute to that council and to hope that its example will be followed by many others. That achievement cannot be laid solely at the feet of the National Government, but it is an example that its administration has gone ahead in the last six or seven months both as regards rural housing and as regards water supplies, which are so vital a feature of the countryside at the present time.
      Unfortunately, some of these schemes are coming to an end, and that means that agricultural workers, who for a short time have been in insurable employment and have made only a few contributions, now find themselves with not enough contributions to enable them to get any unemployment insurance money. At the same time they find themselves faced with the probability of no employment at all or of employment in a non-insurable occupation. That is still a difficulty in the countryside and I find it is worse than before I want away. I understand that the Government are awaiting from the Royal Commission a report on unemployment insurance in the countryside. I will, therefore, not comment upon it but, following the example of my hon. and gallant Friend and late colleague the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), will bring the condition of the agricultural labourer to the notice of the Government and I am sure they will give it the consideration they have always wished to do.
      I want to raise a matter particularly affecting North Essex. In North Essex the owner-occupier has become a feature of our rural husbandly. I have often thought that the average size mixed farm was, in the end, the most suitable way of progress in English agriculture under an owner-occupier. I believe that, amidst all the rival and cunning economic policies for agriculture, that is the most satisfactory, mixing if possible arable with stock farming. But there is a unique opportunity in North Essex for pursuing that line which was suggested by Mr.

      469
      Blundell in his excellent book. Indeed, it has been started. Unfortunately it has coincided with the worst depression that agriculture has known, with the result that we see the calvary of the owner-occupier, who bought his land at a very high price in the period immediately after the War, very often with a mortgage, and now is not able even to pay off the mortgage and is losing money.
      I have been working out estimates from the accounts of farms, and I find that farmers are losing between £l and £3 an acre, without taking into account depreciation of capital or interest on the money invested, or even the wages that the farmer himself might draw. I have worked out these figures as carefully as I could after talking to farmers and having the privilege or sorrow of looking at their accounts. The position is an extremely serious one for a man who has started pioneer work in British agriculture as owner-occupier. I know of one farm of 460 acres, rather bigger than the average, which lost £900 three years ago, £1,600 the year before last, and £1,300 last year. That sort of thing cannot go on indefinitely. It brings one up very much against the problem which they have tackled in a large and grand way on several occasions in the East, that of the entire ruin of an area. It also brings one up against facts which humanity has seldom had to deal with and makes one feel very serious regarding the future.
      The whole of this district has an outlook rather like that. It is in this atmosphere that the farmers find a burden such as tithe a peculiarly hard burden tc bear. I have returned to find the tithe position extremely severe in North Essex. It is easy to imagine the feelings with which a farmer faces a set burden, such as tithe, when his accounts are in the condition that I have described, and when the general outlook of farming is as serious as I have described, and when he has settled as owner-occupier on his own land and has no landlord to take the shock in time of economic severity, as the landlord system, however much reviled, has taken it in the past. For the first time people who own their own land are realising the shock which the landlord system took and from which it often saved the tenants.
      I know that in this Debate I am not allowed to refer to future legislation. I know the Minister's position on this
      470
      point. I should be wasting time if I indulged in heroics about the situation, or if I were to indulge in what is almost a luxury nowadays, that is using the grievances and troubles of the farmers as a means of leading an agitation. There are people at the present time, in a period of unrivalled depression, who are leading astray farmers and men who are in a very serious position already. They are being persuaded to join in an agitation which unfortunately may lead them nowhere. I sympathise with the position of the tithe payers, as anyone who is closely connected with the movement does. At the same time one recognises legal liability. I cannot mention legislation but I would draw attention to the very serious position, and at the same time make an appeal to the tithe owners if possible to make a gesture towards the tithe payers. I realise that Queen Anne's Bounty has made certain concessions, but this is not sufficiently realised in the countryside, and in many cases the concessions are not real.
      Those who lead this agitation have taken the line of attacking the Church directly. It is having a very serious effect upon the Church in the countryside, and is becoming more a social and a religious question than an agricultural question. Nothing could be more valuable than a gesture from the tithe owners, such as has been made by some of the Cambridge colleges and by private landlords. In some cases there have been remissions of from 15 to 20 per cent., and those sensible men among the tithe payers who do not wish to be unconstitutional would, I am sure, appreciate the value of a gesture from other tithe owners. It strikes me as peculiar that those who are leading the tithe agitation in some of our areas should talk so freely of applying to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to solve the problem, and that many of them are the right hon. Gentleman's followers. After all, the right hon. Gentleman was the man who repealed the Corn Production Act, or introduced an Act which did not work and led a great many farmers to purchase their land and to take up an agricultural position which they are now unable to maintain. We should remember and face the facts. Those farmers who are being led away by that sort of argument and who expect the right hon.

      471
      Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to be the deus ex machina are doomed to disappointment, as they were immediately after the War by his handling of the agricultural position. We appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's drive and energy, and many of us were delighted to see him back in the House. I should be delighted to hear him take part in every agricultural discussion we have, but I cannot feel that he is going to be the saviour of the corn farmer.
      It is poor comfort to be told that an improvement in agriculture will make it easier to bear the burden. That was the object of introducing the Wheat Bill. That Bill was destined for East Anglia in particular. East Anglia would do well to use this Measure, and if the farmers have patience I believe the Act will be of the greatest assistance to them. I have attempted in a short space of time to bring forward certain of the troubles and difficulties which we find in East Anglia. The problem is really one of a change-over in agricultural technique and ownership in a time when experiments can ill be afforded. It is a most interesting experiment, and if it can be bolstered up the Government should do all in their power to help. I appreciate the difficulties before the Government, but I appeal to them to remember that East Anglia is a district which has made English history, which can never lightly be disregarded, and that it will repay regard in the best manner possible.
      Mr. LAW: I want to turn from the most important problems which we have been discussing and to direct the attention of the Committee to another field. If hon. Members will turn to the Estimates they will see under the subhead "Fisheries Research" that there has been in the last year a very considerable scaling down of expenditure. In 1931 the expenditure was £74,000, and for this year the estimated expenditure is £7,000. That is a very considerable saving, and it has been brought about almost exclusively by one specific item. The Committee will notice that the estimate of His Majesty's Ship "Challenger," the fishery research vessel, was £65,000, and that there is no estimate at all this year. This vessel was built specially for use as a fishery research vessel of the Ministry of Agriculture, but owing to financial stringency it
      472
      was given up by the Minister of Agriculture and handed over to the Admiralty, and it is being used to-day on the China station, where it has taken the place of a patrol vessel that has become obsolete. I do not think that the fishing industry grudges this sacrifice at the present time. It regards it as a just contribution to the country at a time of financial emergency. I ask the Minister most earnestly to see to it that if and when the financial position becomes easier the Admiralty will disgorge the "Challenger" and restore her to her more normal occasions. It is quite true that there is no particular need for a fishery research vessel at the present time, because the problem in the fishing industry is not a scarcity of fish which must be sought, but a glut, and in particular a glut of fish of foreign taking. I ask the Minister in the meantime to consider what steps he can take to arrest this very damaging inflow of foreign-caught fish, and then when more normal conditions are restored in the industry generally and in the fishing industry in particular, to restore to the fishing industry the research vessel, the services of which are valued very highly indeed.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. C. BROWN: I always listen with a great deal of interest to these agricultural Debates, although I represent an industrial constituency. I have listened with additional interest to-day, because I wanted to know just what supporters of the Government were thinking about what had been done for agriculture after 12 months of the National Government. I recollect very well how in the last Parliament we had painted for us pictures of the decline and decay of agriculture. Some of them were very gloomy pictures indeed. But the pictures which have been painted to-day are hardly less gloomy than those which were painted during the lifetime of the Labour Government. I took a note of some of the phrases used by supporters of the Government to-day. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills) told us that there was still going on a steady decay of farming. He said that if another war occurred to-day, we would be much worse off than we were at the commencement of the Great War. The burden of the speeches which we have heard from the Government Benches to-day suggest that, as far as agriculture

      473
      is concerned, there is widespread inertia and a lack of intiative and enterprise. I am all the more surprised at those declarations in view of the fact that some measure of protection has been extended to the agricultural industry already. There have been, this afternoon, many requests from hon. Members opposite for further protection in various respects.
      Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Hear, hear!
      Mr. BROWN: The hon. and gallant Member is hoping for a great deal more after the Ottawa Conference. But if hon. Members supporting the Government have any real faith in the system of Protection which they are assisting to establish for agriculture, I should have thought that their speeches to-day would have been full of optimism. I am therefore much surprised to observe the note of gloom and almost of despair which has characterised many of the speeches of the Government's supporters on this subject. Apart from that characteristic, their speeches have been contradictory. May I illustrate that remark by mentioning the references made to the subject of land drainage? In the last Parliament, when a Measure in connection with land drainage was being considered, we were frequently told: "It is no use doing anything about land drainage until you have given Protection to agriculture. When you have given Protection, then we shall get on with land drainage." Now they talk in a variety of ways about land drainage. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon, for instance, agreed that something ought to be done. All that troubled him was where the money was to come from with which to do it. He suggested that we should do wisely in spending less on roads and more on land drainage. Then the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) told us that land drainage was a purely local problem, while the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Colonel Sir G. Courthope) said it was anything but a local problem and had to be tackled almost in a national way if we were to deal with it successfully.
      It would appear that among the supporters of the Government there is a wide diversity of views in regard to nearly every one of the agricultural problems discussed this afternoon. It is true that certain sections have already been able
      474
      to bring pressure to bear on the Minister. The Minister seems to be a person who can be easily squeezed, and I suggest that hon. Members who have other special interests to serve ought to put more pressure on the Minister, because, as the pressure increases, they are increasingly likely to get what they want. Another subject which has figured prominently in this Debate has been the relationship of land drainage and agriculture generally to the problem of unemployment. I am surprised at the Minister's reply to the case made out for drainage in the Doncaster area. I am even more surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). I understand that the hon. Member lives outside his constituency, but he ought to have in mind the conditions under which his constituents have been suffering for the last few weeks more than any theory as to who should pay for the drainage work which is so necessary in that area. Among the residents in the area who have been suffering under the conditions which obtained there during recent weeks, there would not be much difference of opinion as to the necessity for this work. In existing circumstances the only effective way in which that problem can be tackled is by financial assistance from the national Exchequer. In that area, it is to be remembered, that there are many unemployed miners who could be turned on to the task of carrying out much of the work so necessary there at present.
      May I, in conclusion, refer to the larger issues which are raised in every agricultural Debate? I put this question to hon. Members opposite: What are they going to do in future to deal with the large volume of unemployment in this country? Looking at the problem from every side it seems to me that the one thing to which hon. Members can turn their attention is putting the land of the country to better use. Have the Government any policy at all for developing agriculture behind their protective walls? We are told that they are expected to raise those walls much higher and to give much more protection to agriculture. I assume that that is their policy and on that assumption I have a right to ask what they intend to do to deal with the huge volume of unemployment. As I say, only one thing remains and that is the better utilisation of the land.

      475
      Have the Government in mind any nation-wide scheme to achieve that end? Are they considering such matters as the development of smallholdings? I put that question most emphatically. I am convinced that the policies which the Government are pursuing in other directions are such and the development of technique in industry is of such a character, that there is not the slightest possibility, in any future that we can visualise, of absorbing again into industrial undertakings very many of our unemployed. The land being the only thing left we have a right to ask from these benches, "What are you going to do about it?" Perhaps the Government will tell us?
      Major BRAITHWAITE: I have listened with great interest to the speeches this afternoon in connection with the great problems of agriculture and I deeply appreciate the action which has been taken by the Government in connection with certain branches of the industry. But agriculture is not bound up with one or two particular products only. It is a great series of businesses, all joined together, and interdependent the one upon the other, and while the Minister has been strengthening certain links, he has left other parts of the chain very weak and they may give way before the work is complete. I wish to ask some questions in relation to one or two of the more serious factors in agriculture to-day in connection with which the industry is liable to break down.
      The first is the question of barley. As the Committee knows there are only three uses for barley in this country. It can go into the making of beer; it can help in the making of whiskey, or it can be used as a feeding stuff for stock. The duties which have been imposed in connection with the licensed trade make it extremely improbable that we can have any substantial markets in the first two directions. I would direct the Minister's attention to a statement which I heard recently on good authority to the effect that the British maltsters, at the moment, have enough malt to last them for a year from next July without calling upon the present crop at all. What, then, is to be done with the crop which is now coming on? The farmers, particularly those who operate on the high lands of this country in places like the Yorkshire wolds, are very much dependent upon getting a good
      476
      price for their barley. To-day they are faced with reduced consumption and lack of markets, and also the importation of Californian barley which is being sold at a very low price and is seriously damaging their business. I ask the Minister if his Department cannot offer some advice to the farmers in this matter. I know that it would be out of place in this Debate to suggest legislation, but I think that the 1,600 people employed by the Minister ought to be able to suggest some method or some scheme to the farmers, whereby they will be able to get a market for the present season's crop.
      Then what of the market for sheep? At the present time the price of mutton is the lowest ever recorded in this country. I have heard from South America of a case in which 10,000 sheep were given, without any price at all, to one of the large meat concerns, merely for the taking, because the farmers there could not afford to keep them alive. What is to be done in face of competition of that sort? Are our farmers to be subjected to such unprecedented competition as that? I am quite sensible of the fact that it is necessary for the people of this country to have a supply of the cheapest and best quality possible. At the same time, agriculture is of such vital importance in the building up of this nation that we cannot afford to allow competition of that sort to destroy one of the things which make for a stable agricultural industry in this country. The position as regards the sheep and mutton markets of this country is very dangerous. I know that the Minister is examining it and I hope that when he goes to the Ottawa Conference he will make such arrangements as will leave plenty of margin for the sale of our own home stock before any comes in, either from the Empire or anywhere else.
      I would also ask the Minister to give the farming public a little more information about the quantity of foreign meat consumed in this country and in "foreign" I include that which comes from the Colonies as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am speaking now for the British farmers, the English farmers, the home farmers, and they want to know who is getting the business in connection with the meat supplies of this country. I can tell the Committee that the average person in the towns often does not know the source of some of the meat supplies

      477
      and if the Minister and his Department can publish information regularly as to the amount consumed and make it widely known, it will be to the advantage of the farming community.
      I would also like to ask if the present very low prices for meat coming into this country have any relation to the currency difficulties of other countries, and if they have, and they are likely to go on for a long time, are there no temporary measures that the right hon. Gentleman can take, inside the ambit of existing legislation, to keep those prices at a steady balance? I understand that in some of the countries from which many of these products come the currency varies from day to day, and therefore prices may reach an even lower level and may operate more adversely to our farmers than at the present time.
      I am very grateful—I think I mentioned this in the last agricultural Debate—for the Wheat Quota Bill that has been passed, and I can assure the Minister that in my constituency the farmers are cooperating very well and are going to do everything they can to make the Act work properly, but can he, during this year, before the harvest is reached, if his Wheat Commission is operating properly, provide any advances to farmers to carry them through their harvesting? It is most important that, if he can, he should try to help in that direction. I understand that there are certain periods when the Wheat Commission can advance money to farmers. There never was a time when agricultural credit was worse than, now; it was never more difficult for farmers to get money with which to carry on, and if the right hon. Gentleman can find any means of helping these farmers over this harvest, I am certain that it will be abundantly repaid by a better feeling in agriculture altogether.
      I want to turn to another question that is controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture. We have, on the coast of Yorkshire, inspectors who regulate the quantity of shingle that is removed from the various beaches, and the Ministry of Agriculture have been restricting in many cases the removal of this shingle. I do not know how the Department regulates the amount that can be taken away, but I am told by the local people, who have a thorough knowledge of the case, that the Ministry of Agriculture's restrictions are too arbi-
      478
      trary and that more shingle could be removed, to the advantage of the district, without being detrimental to the question of coast erosion and that sort of thing. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, at this time particularly, when everybody at the seaside resorts is very hard up, not to make it more difficult for them than is necessary, but to try to give them a free hand to get their local aggregates for building construction.
      I would also like the Minister at an early date to make a statement to this House or to the country as to the use of electricity in farming. We have spent considerable sums of money up and down the country—I think I have said this also before—despoiling the countryside by the wretched pylons that have obscured many of the beauty spots in my division, and I do not know a single farmer who has yet had any benefit from it. I realise that in some of the villages they have got electric light for the first time, which is a very great advantage to them, but I do not know a single farmer in my division who has taken advantage of this electrical power to help him in his industry; and I should like some information on that question, because in the future agriculture, I feel, will have to rely on electricity as a very important factor in conducting its business. If the Minister at any time can give us information on that subject, I am certain that the farmers of the country will greatly appreciate it.
      I do not want the Minister to feel that the farmers do not realise the delicate nature of the negotiations which he is going to undertake at Ottawa. I am certain that they fully realise how careful he will be, and they have the utmost confidence in his capacity for dealing with the problem, but I do want him not to give too much away to other people. We need a lot of markets to keep our agriculturists going, and we do not want to have the Colonies quota-ed to such an extent that they are going to eat into our markets. The farmers feel that the Minister, realising that difficulty, is going to take very great precautions to safeguard their particular markets and to look on the Colonies as adjuncts to our food supplies rather than as the principal factors.
      I feel that there is no reason for the remark made by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), that agricul-

      479
      ture is not going forward. Agriculture is definitely going forward in those branches that the Minister has been able to tackle. I know that in the horticultural products section there has been a substantial advance, and that on the wheat side also there is a substantial advance, but I want the Minister to tighten up the weak links in the chain, which are all interdependent, one upon the other, in the great structure of the industry. If we got those put right, we shall undoubtedly have made more progress in six months than the Labour party, with their policy, would have made in six years. They definitely set out to ruin this industry, and they very nearly succeeded in doing it, but we have been able, in the short time during which the present Minister has been in charge, to make substantial progress towards undoing the grievous harm to which they had exposed the industry.
      Mr. C. BROWN: Can the hon. and gallant Member explain the volume of complaints that we have heard to-day?
      Major BRAITHWAITE: The volume of complaints now, I am certain, is infinitesimal as compared with that which was heard when the Labour party were in charge of this industry. I can remember that in an agricultural Debate we never heard anything but a whole string of complaints, which came from every speaker who took part. Now these complaints are very general, but they are confined to three or four aspects of the industry.
      Mr. C. BROWN: They are only in a minor key!
      Major BRAITHWAITE: As far as my constituents and I are concerned, for what has been done we are grateful, but we expect more, and I want to impress upon the Minister the urgency of the new legislation that he is to propose. I would ask him—I know it is difficult—if he can to make some announcement to the farmers of the country that he definitely intends to tackle these things. We know that he has set up certain commissions and committees. The fanners know that, and they are looking forward to the results, but I want the National Government to say plainly to the fanners, "We, as a National Government, are going to
      480
      make stock-raising pay and to put it on a profitable basis; we are going to make pigs a profitable proposition to the farmers; we are going to make sheep and mutton worth while to the fanners." If the Minister can say that, I am certain that they would feel more confidence in going forward.
      Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: May I go back for a moment to the drainage question, because it is very important from many points of view? It arose because of the difficulties in the Bentley district, but I think we must look at this question over a wider area. We had this whole question under discussion during the three long and weary years that one sat on the Subsidence in Mining Commission, and the whole feeling then was that you must take the question out of the small area and treat it in a very large way indeed, and that necessarily meant a very large authority. On that authority to-day, I understand, the representation of various interests has been very carefully considered. You have in an area like the Doncaster district the agricultural interest; you also have the local government interest, which is a very important one, with the question of getting their drainage away from their district to the sea; and you have in addition the interest of the coal industry. In this area it happens that there are many seams of good quality, near to good markets, and it is undoubted that development will take place there in the near future.
      If that is so, there is bound to be eventually some conflict of interests between the various people concerned as to who really ought to pay for what undoubtedly will take place in that area. It is already low lying, and it will be more so by the inevitable subsidence which will take place, and I have not the least doubt that, rightly from their point of view, the local government and the agricultural interests will say to the mining interest, "You have caused this subsidence and you have caused water to accumulate which would not have accumulated, if you had not been there, and therefore you ought to pay." You cannot look at it in that way at all, and I admit that there may be very considerable discussion and conflict of interests as to who should pay. Therefore, I press on the Ministry that they should take

      481
      very careful steps and consult with the Ministry of Mines in the matter, and if the authority now existing is varied in any way, that provision shall be made to get a proper appeal from the authority in the case of any assessment. It is not sufficient to give representation to this, that, and the other interest, and then to leave it there with the authority, because it is always possible to get two interests to combine against a third and leave the third very much in the hole if those two particular interests think there is more in the third interest than they themselves should be called upon to pay. Therefore, I hope that some means of appeal will be found in order that any one of the interests concerned may be able to get justice in those circumstances.
      I happen to be one of those unfortunate people who are occasionally attacked by what is called the forward movement in agriculture in this country, in which, with loud cymbals and the sound of much brass, we are told that we ought to do this, that, or the other, immediately. The remedy appears to be that an immediate and very high tariff should be put on all agricultural products. I have never been able to avoid this thought—I suppose it is due to an industrial training—that the whole country to-day is changing very much, and that if agriculture is going to be successful itself, it has to take on some of the nature of industrialism also. One has always pressed that, but one is met with the allegation, "Oh, that is all very well, but you do not tell us what you are going to do for us. It is true that we are prepared to do this, but how do we know that if we do begin to set up these various Commissions and take these matters into our own hands, we shall not then be let down?"
      The suggestion is not unfair, and I want to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that I think a good deal of suspicion would be allayed if, at the time his reports are made to him from these Commissions—and I believe and hope very sincerely that they will find some practical remedies, though not quite of the nature suggested by my hon. (Friend here, because no one really believed that —if he will, at that time that those proposals are brought forward by the Government say to the agricultural industry, "If you will do this, we will give you this definite help," and then, if
      482
      financial help only comes at the time when the suggestions are made, I am sure this will help on the cause of marketing, which is so essential, very considerably.
      8.0 p.m.
      I think we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman—I know that we have in the district that I represent—for a great deal that has already been done. I hope that in the future he will remember that there is a further source of help that he can get, without any new legislation and without in any way asking this House to give a grant to the industry. He can take as an example what the Department of Overseas Trade is doing now. It is backing bills for export industry. I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that he could back bills for internal industry. He has some means already under existing Acts for advancing money on loan and so on for agricultural purposes. I believe that he realises that what the industry needs is to take part itself in the processing of its products. I submit that it would be in order under the existing law for him to consider whether he could not use for these processing purposes, not the Export Credits Department, but something which is very like it. In addition to helping our foreign trade from that Department, could not we help our own internal trade by having a credit department in this country? If he looks into the matter, he will find that it is possible. I am not asking him in any way to sink money; I am asking him to say to the industry, "If you help yourselves and get together, you will have some of this money. We do not pretend to give it to you as a subsidy, but, having given you a measure of protection and national credit at a low rate of interest, we will give you a little more in the form of a guarantee, which will enable you to go on and to progress better than you can in existing circumstances." I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether this form of finance could not in future be used for the industry.
      Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: The urgency of the agricultural problem can be seen from the state of the benches in the House during this Debate. An excellent case has been made out in regard to the flooding problem, particularly for the mining areas of Yorkshire, but what has struck me during the discussion is the

      483
      difference in the policy of two countries. In this country the Government refuse to spend a penny to prevent the flooding of tremendous areas, but in a little country like Holland they are spending millions in forming dykes to rescue land from the sea. There is an absolute contrast between the policy of this country, which is the more powerful and stronger country, and the policy of Holland, which although it has a much smaller population can see its way clear to spend millions of money on draining the Zuider Zee so as to increase the area of the land. The matter is not receiving the consideration in this country that it should receive. There must be great loss to those who are endeavouring to farm land in those areas which are flooded, and it is a gross travesty of civilisation to allow conditions to exist in which masses of people have their houses flooded and their furniture floating about in their rooms. This Government is called a National Government; there may be plenty of national about it, but it is difficult to see where the government is.
      It is not as though past Governments have not had sufficient warning on this question. When you travel in a train you can see vast areas of land under water. I do not profess to be an agriculturist, but I know that that cannot do very much good to the land and cannot assist the farmer. I can understand the serious difficulty in which the farmer is placed from that point of view, but all that could be avoided by the expenditure of intelligence, engineering, money, and labour. These conditions would not be surprising if there was nobody out of work. The trouble with this Government is that it sets out to put everything right. During the tenure of the Labour Government the Front Bench was bombarded day after day with questions about solving unemployment. The present Government came in with a great majority and a programme as long as a ship's yard arm, and claimed that they would settle the question of trade, unemployment, and everything else. But with all their wonderful cures, unemployment still goes on, and, when there are chances to give really exceptionally valuable and useful labour, they set their faces against them. There are greater numbers of agricultural workers out of employment now than there have been for many years past.
      Mr. PIKE: They are working in the pits.
      Mr. DUNCAN: And there are hundreds of thousands of miners out of work, so they and the agricultural labourers are between the devil and the deep sea. There is no question that a greater number of agricultural workers are unemployed to-day than there have been for a great number of years. What is the Minister of Agriculture doing? He is going to Ottawa. He is busy listening to his friends who want Protection; first it is barley, then wheat, meat, and the rest of it. But what about the farm labourer who is out of work? Is he to be allowed to stew in his own juice and to be continually ignored as he has been in the past? Is he continuously to be forced to go to the Poor Law or the workhouse at the end of a life of toil? To all appearances this most powerful of modern Governments is prepared to leave the agricultural labourer to his own fate. They have put forward no programme for the betterment of his conditions. In the whole of their policy there is nothing for the labourer.
      The men who work on the soil form the greatest proportion of those engaged in agriculture, and yet nothing is done for them by this strongest Government of modern times. They have a majority sufficient to enable them to do anything, for only a still small voice opposes them. They have everything at their hands to enable them to carry out their will, and yet, when it comes to the poorest section of the people employed on the land, they do nothing. The lives of these people are a tragedy. The greatest tragedy I have seen is the old agricultural labourer when he reaches 70 years of age and becomes crippled by rheumatism, which he gets through working out in the open and through his clothes drying on his body, and through living a meagre life in a place that is sometimes not fit to stable a horse. This greatest of all Governments seems to despise the man at the bottom and to leave him where he is. I think that is hardly fair. People who grow barley ask the Minister what he can do for them. They never seem to have heard about the Marketing Board. "God helps those who help themselves" it is said, but I think a large part of the farming community seem to have lost all ability to help themselves. One has only to listen to their questions in this House.

      485
      The Minister of Agriculture has bad anything but a happy time. They have worried all the hair off his head—and he is only at the beginning of his difficulties. Everybody has been telling him what they expect him to do at Ottawa. It is a beautiful place—I have been there—and I hope he will enjoy it, but he is going to have a lively little time. After all the instructions he is getting and the anticipations that are being formed I am sure the disappointment when toe returns will be colossal.
      Where are we getting to? There is nothing doing in drainage, nothing doing as regards providing unemployment insurance for agricultural workers, and nothing doing in the matter of setting up a national wages board. The Minister sees that wages have gone down and that hours are being lengthened, yet he takes off his inspectors, telling the fanners "Go on, rob these people, nobody is taking any notice." That is his meed of encouragement to the farmers. I do not know how he can square that with his conscience; I regard it as one of the most disgraceful things ever done in politics. There was proof of what was going on. He knew as well as other Members of cases where men were not receiving the proper rate of wages as fixed by law, but all the same he took off a number of his inspectors to make it easy for the farmers to rob their labourers. There will be a few questions about that to answer at the next election, and some of those who are now sitting opposite will have rather a merry time. It seems to me the Ministry of Agriculture has neither eyes nor ears for any interests except these of the landowners and the farmers. There are different castes in India, and I suppose that the agricultural labourers in this country must be the "Untouchables."
      The present Government have an enormous majority, and it would be the easiest thing in the world for them to carry out their will, but they "stand pat" and do nothing. Still I hope that what I am saying may not fall upon deaf ears. The Minister of Agriculture looks a rather intelligent sort of Minister, and he is not very old, only middle aged, and he has time to learn a lot, and if what has been said in this Debate does not open both his eyes I hope it may at least open one of them, so that he may see there are other points of view than those with
      486
      which he has been brought into contact hitherto. He should also realise that he is now in a different Government from any other Government. We ought to have some evidence that it is a different Government, though so far we have seen nothing to indicate that there is a difference between this National Government and the other Governments with which he has been associated. I hope he may not be beyond redemption, and that he will give some grounds for hope to those who are worst off in this world's gear. They have very little hope of improving their position apart from any action this Government may take to assist them.
      Unemployment insurance is one of the greatest and most beneficial schemes ever introduced into any civilised country. I think that before the world is very much older every civilised country will follow suit where Britain has led, and that circumstances in those countries where it may be opposed at the moment will force them along the same lines as this country has taken. Unemployment insurance could be easily extended to the agricultural population. [Interruption.] I am not expecting any promise of legislation in the course of this Debate; I am only asking that we may have some little ray of hope, some indication that the Minister is thinking about these things. He is a fellow countryman of mine and I have some little consideration for him. He knows that the agricultural workers in Scotland were opposed to the unemployment insurance scheme at one time, but that they have now turned round, and surely that ought to influence him to see whether this question is not worth a little more consideration than it has had hitherto. It ought to have some place among the avalanche of appeals made to the Government—sometimes asking for their assistance and at other times praying to be protected from their interference. Parliament is asked to assist the producers of mutton, cheese, butter, and everything else. When the job is finished, Heaven only knows where we shall be, and what the cost of food will be.
      Farmers are living in hope that the present Minister of Agriculture will solve all the difficulties of agriculture, though he knows just as well as I know that he will do nothing of the sort. He knows that agriculture is up against a world problem, and that is why he is going to

      487
      Ottawa, though when he gets there he will find many things never before dreamt of in his philosophy. I think that when he gets to Ottawa he will play his part all right. He is getting plenty of instruction as to what he ought to do, and he will tell the story all right, only he will meet there other people with their stories, and he himself will have to swallow a bit as well as expecting them to swallow a bit. But the question is, Where are we going to come out in this business? Will the new Jerusalem be set up? In truth we shall still have the same old trouble, because it is a world trouble. It is not only here that prices are low, they are low all over the world.
      It is a strange thing that we should be suffering because of the very cheapness of living. I have been told of one sheep breeder somewhere in South America who actually gave somebody 10,000 sheep. That is an astonishing thing to have done; but if we continue to screw down wages in this country the people will be still less able to buy meat. When they get a bit of beef or mutton at all it will be the outcome of some gift of some South American producer; they will not be able to buy it. The policy of the present Government is to keep on screwing and cutting in every direction, cutting down in education, sickness benefits and the rest; they appear to think that not until they have got the people on the margin of starvation shall we have found salvation. If they think that policy will help them then I say "God help the Government."
      Mr. CHRISTIE: We have all listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. C. Duncan) with the greatest interest, and I am certain that the Minister must now feel far better equipped for his visit to Ottawa. I am afraid I must inflict on the House some measure of repetition of what has been said by the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division (Major Braithwaite) regarding barley and mutton, because at the last election I told my constituents that the programme of the National Government would include three important items— first, a wheat quota, second an import duty on malting barley; and third, a promise that the armed forces of the Crown would be fed on British meat
      488
      during the six winter months. I was told that I was authorised to say that, and I feel quite confident that some of my supporters, relying on those promises, and believing that the extra penny on beer was to be taken off in the Budget, increased their area under barley and also increased the number of their livestock for fattening.
      The position of a great many farmers in Norfolk is a deplorable one. There is a lot of land there which can only produce two really good crops, one of which is sheep and the other a comparatively small yield of very high-class barley. We heard from the hon. Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite), and from the Noble Lord, the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) the other night, that the maltsters of this country are already so well provided with malt and with barley that they will not require to come into the market until July of next year. Therefore, the outlook of these unfortunate farmers, more especially if they increased their barley acreage as a result of election promises, is deplorable. They will probably produce a considerable quantity of this very high-class barley and, instead of getting the price which it is worth, they will probably have to sell the greater proportion of it for feeding-barley at a very much lower price.
      As regards their sheep, upon which they also depend, we have heard already about their terrible experience when they come to sell their fat sheep in the early spring. The most fortunate of them were successful in obtaining a price which was about the same as that at which they purchased the lambs last June. Very few of them were sufficiently lucky to do that; the majority of them lost anything from 5s. to 10s. per head on the actual price that they paid for the sheep as lambs last June, and they received nothing whatever to pay for the feeding and the labour which were expended on the sheep in the intervening time during last winter. Those unfortunate people who cannot grow wheat because their land is not good enough are depending on the only two crops to which they can look, their barley and their sheep.
      Then there are the people who are feeding bullocks with a view to turning them into beef, and who find that the price of beef is so bad and is so low that very

      489
      few of them have been able to show a profit. Both as regards beef and mutton there is no doubt that the reason for the present condition of things is the vast importations which come to this country from abroad, especially of mutton from Australia, and which have had a deplorable effect upon the price. I do not think that the farmers would object so strongly to those importations of foreign meat if they felt that the meat was going to distressed areas, and was being sold at a low price to the people who are so near the hunger line, but we find that a good deal of it is disposed of every day at Smithfield market, the best market for meat, I suppose, in the world. The proportion of imported meat sold in Smith-field market sometimes rises as high as nearly 90 per cent. I think that the farmer has therefore every right to complain, and to suggest that some action should be taken to divert this cheap meat to where it is required, so that the finest meat market in the world should be reserved to the men who breed the best type of fatted cattle.
      8.30 p.m.
      I remember very well that, before the War, our local markets received a great deal of its support from butchers who came from London and wealthy towns along the South coast, like Eastbourne, St. Leonards and Bournemouth, and who bought the cream of our production at a good price taking the meat down to the South of England. Now quite the contrary is generally the case. We have no visitors of that sort, and anybody who is familiar with the meat market will realise at once what a loss it is to find that foreign butchers are not attending, and that nothing is done to upset what very often amounts to a ring of local buyers.
      Then there is the case of the man who has been induced, very often as the result of Government propaganda, to go in for poultry. I do not think that any side of our industry has been more encouraged by the Government than the poultry industry. People have been told that if they have difficulties in getting a good price for their cereals, one way out would be to use their wheat for feeding chickens. We are assailed by large quantities of imported birds and imported eggs. Sometimes, when we make a complaint, we are told that the quantity has not increased so very much. What is hitting the indus-
      490
      try even more than the quantity is the very low price at which these foreign imports are sold in tills country. All through the question of the importations of meat and poultry, and so on, there always runs a feeling which I think is very generally held by producers here, and that is that these imported birds and meat are not sold at a low price to the consumer, but are very often sold under the name of English and at an English price. I appeal to the Minister to see whether it will not be possible in some way or other to try to stop such substitution, if it exists. It is perfectly intolerable that the housewife who is trying to do her best to back up her own countrymen who are farming, and who is prepared to pay more money if she thinks she can make sure of getting British foodstuffs, should be subjected to the possibility of paying the best English price for what is not an English article at all.
      Then there is another way of looking at it. We often read in the papers about the deplorably dirty conditions in which butter is produced in Russia, and we often read with the greatest disgust, if it be true, of the appalling prevalence of syphilis among young people in Russia. Is it fair that decent, clean English people should be allowed to handle products which are packed, perhaps, by people suffering from that terrible disease, or packed in the dirtiest and filthiest conditions, and that decent English women should be allowed to handle those things in the preparation of food for their families without having a chance of knowing where the products come from? It would be out of order to discuss legislation for marking imported foodstuffs, but I hope that Parliament will shortly have a chance of discussing the matter. I believe, however, that such regulation and marking would be of immense advantage, not only to the farmer, but to the purchaser as well.
      There is one small thing which would help the poultry farmer very much, and which could be done with the greatest ease without legislation. I am given to understand that hotels and restaurants are still very inclined to purchase foreign eggs, and, as the ordinary customer generally orders eggs cooked in some such way as poached or scrambled or something of the sort, the customer never realises that he is eating foreign eggs. It is a very small thing to ask of people

      491
      who go to hotels and restaurants, but, if they would make a point, when they want an egg, of asking for a boiled egg, these hotels and restaurants would have to give up buying foreign eggs, because they would not dare to put before a customer an egg with a foreign mark on it, as they would have to do if he ordered it in the shell. That seems a small thing, but I believe it would stimulate the demand for British-produced eggs tremendously.
      As I have said, the position of the farmer is desperate, and it is getting worse every day; and it seems to me to be inevitable that, unless something is done very speedily, two things must happen. The first is that the farmer, in despair, will have to concentrate his energies entirely on those lines which the Minister has already assisted. We shall then have him giving up growing cereals like barley and oats, and attempting, if he has any money or credit left, to go into the fruit business. If he begins to do that sort of thing to any extent, a deplorable result will follow, because the fruit industry has not a very wide margin of expansion at the present time, and, if we had an influx of cereal farming into the industry, inevitably the industry would be completely overdone, and we should be subjected to gluts in the industry, which would be very hard luck for the people who are taking it up at the present time.
      The other effect, which would be still more serious, is this: It seems inevitable, if some general policy for the whole industry is not very speedily settled, that, when it is settled, however good, and helpful it is, it will fail, because there will not be the farmers in existence to carry it out. I need hardly remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when a farmer goes bankrupt, or has to make a composition with his creditors, as many of them are doing now, he never comes back; when he has once failed he is done; and it is a very highly skilled occupation, and the number of farmers is strictly limited. It would be deplorable if, when the right hon. Gentleman eventually comes to a really fine scheme, it should have to be said, "This is a fine scheme, but, unfortunately, there are not enough skilled men to carry it out to its full extent,"
      492
      In conclusion, may I be so bold as to give the right hon. Gentleman a word of advice? I very much appreciate what he has done for the industry; I think he has made a very good start; but it seems to me that this Government has not entirely thrown off one of the greatest defects of party Governments so far as I have known them, and that is timidity. I suppose it is almost an essential part of a party Government, because there are so many people who can be offended, but I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, when the National Government was sent back here, it was sent back with a view to doing its utmost to give the producers in this country a real chance of increasing their output, of reducing imports from abroad, of earning a decent livelihood, and of paying a decent wage to their workpeople. I believe that that was the desire of the people of this country who gave this Government such an immense majority, and I believe that the one sin which the Government can commit in their eyes is a failure to carry out that policy, and carry it out speedily.
      Therefore, I implore the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in both hands. I feel confident that he can do whatever he likes if it is really an attempt to step forward and assist our industry of agriculture. I beseech him to throw away all idea of timidity, and to take a great deal less notice of the recommendations and protests of the distributors, and a great deal more notice of the requests and interests of the producers and consumers. Many attempts to help our industry have been wrecked because the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors have been so terribly anxious not to offend the distributing part of the business. They have had their say long enough. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not take my advice in bad part, and that, when he gets to Ottawa, he will see to it that Mr. Brace's words are remembered—that the first place in our home markets shall be secured for the British farmer, and only after him for the farmers of the Dominions and Colonies, and last, and I hope very much least, for the foreigner.
      Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. C. Duncan) complained that, when his party were in office, we attacked them con-

      493
      tinually for not having reduced unemployment, and he said that the National Government had not done it either. I would remind the hon. Member that we never promised to do it in three weeks, as a leading Member of the late Socialist Government did. Naturally, as a Member of the Opposition, he attacked the Government, but I cannot think that he is quite as ignorant as he would have us believe when he said that the Government were entirely neglecting the agricultural labourer. Surely, if farming continues to go down, not only will the farmer be ruined, but the agricultural labourer will lose his employment. By giving assistance to agriculture, the Government are doing the best thing they can for the agricultural labourer, and a great deal more than the late Socialist Government ever did.
      I think the Committee ought to be grateful to the Minister of Agriculture for the very clear statement that he gave us this afternoon, and more especially for his timely warning, which cannot be repeated too often, about the financial position of the country, and the fact that money cannot be spent on a great many very desirable objects simply because the money is not there. I feel rather surprised at hearing Members of the Opposition continually advocating expenditure on this and that object, entirely oblivious of the financial position of the country.
      But I am bound to say, speaking as the representative of a constituency where the principal industry is the raising of cattle and sheep, that I was a little dismayed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, if I understood him aright, that the only assistance to the stock-raising industry was to be the increased demand due to the revival of urban industries. I do not know how soon he expects that revival to take place, but, if it does not come very soon, the stock-raising farmer will be driven out of business altogether. After all, they, like everyone else, have been hit by the fall in wholesale prices. A great many of the urban industries have been assisted by tariffs, the cereal farmers have been assisted by the quota, and the producers of fruit and of vegetables have also been assisted, but nothing whatever has been done for the stock-raising farmers. During the last three months there has been a fall of 10s. to 15s. in the price of sheep and lambs. It must be
      494
      obvious that that condition of affairs cannot go on if the raising of sheep is to be continued at all. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to give us a clearer indication of their policy than has been given up to date.
      The Minister has had various schemes for marketing and grading put before him. I wonder if he can tell us whether he has come to any decision on them. Everyone admits that grading and marketing must accompany any other form of Government assistance that may be given, but we should like to know if those schemes have been considered and got into such a position that, whatever may be done at Ottawa, assistance can be given with the least possible delay when we come back in the autumn. Members in all parts of the Committee have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that at Ottawa the interests of the British producers must come first. I believe that at that Conference the future of the British livestock industry will be at stake. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take to heart the concluding words of an article in the "Times" yesterday, which says:
      "If the agriculture of the temperate parts of the Empire is to meet modern requirements, it is essential that animal 'husbandry should receive all the attention and assistance the Governments of the Empire can afford."
      Mr. ROSBOTHAM: It is a pleasure for me to address the Committee under your chairmanship, Captain Crookshank. It is appropriate that you should preside over an agricultural Debate, because the town that you represent has been one of the foremost in the country in providing the world with the finest agricultural machinery. I am sure we are pleased with the tone of the Debate. We welcome the criticism of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), though the lecture of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. C. Duncan) might well have been delivered to the Minister's predecessor. My right hon. Friend has a very difficult position to fill. I can remember him being appointed. We used to think he was appointed because of his lack of knowledge of the industry. Later, we began to think his appointment was just a stepping stone to another place at the end of the corridor, but I think, after the way in which he has

      495
      fulfilled his office, we can dispense with that idea and take it that he has decided to remain at his post of duty and do his best for the agricultural interest in general. I trust that the Opposition will not be too hard on him, and, after his conciliatory speech, and in view of the pleasant tone of the Debate, will withdraw the Amendment to reduce his salary, because, if they did that, he would be badly off, and he will need it when he goes to Ottawa.
      The question of the drainage of our flooded areas has occupied a prominent part of the Debate and it is a matter of very great importance. The late Conservative Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into flooding, with the idea of consolidating drainage under one national board. It remained for the predecessor of the present Minister to carry through a Drainage Act, and he deserves credit for the persevering way in which he took charge of the Bill. A rate not exceeding 2d. can be levied in a drainage area, and that brings in a large amount of money. We know how much can be done in draining a flooded area if that rate is levied and the drainage and catchment boards will face up to their duty and get on with the work of relief. We all sympathise with the inhabitants of the Doncaster district and with the farmers in the losses that they have sustained.
      I should like to put in a plea for allotment holders and smallholders. I hope the Minister will find later on that he is in a position to give a grant in aid of the allotment movement, because it is a very good one. If you can get the unemployed to take an interest in the growing of vegetables for their own homes, it is a thing that ought to be encouraged. It occupies their minds, and it is an education in many ways and keeps them fit till the time when work comes along. I am in a position to contradict the statement that the smallholdings movement has not been a success. In some counties it has not and never will be, but in the industrial counties—Lancashire comes first in the work of smallholdings and Glamorganshire comes second—they are a success. In Lancashire we have several colonies of smallholdings and some of these men are doing very well. They are making a living on three to five acres.
      496
      I should like to impress on the Minister the importance of doing all he can to extend the smallholdings movement in industrial counties where the unemployment figures are the largest, because there are men who have left the land and gone into industry who are now out of work and, with their knowledge of the land, would like to go back. Much can be grown on smallholdings, and cultivation under glass is progressing at a good rate. Many of our vegetables and fruits can be grown on those smallholdings, and the rapid strides which have been made in the canning, bottling, and preserving of fruits and vegetables will be of great assistance to the smallholding movement.
      Research is a matter which should not be lost sight of, and, in fact, I am sure that the present Minister is giving careful attention to it. I have spoken before in the House with regard to the value of research in my division. If it had not been for the research work at the testing station at Ormskirk in regard to potatoes, we should have had none of the varieties which are being grown in gardens and on allotments. Great work has been done by the introduction of new varieties which are immune from every disease, and that sort of work deserves every encouragement. I have mentioned that research work in particular, because I am closely associated with it and know the great value of it.
      It was mentioned this afternoon that the smallholding movement had cost the country £800,000, which sum is in the Estimates to-day, but I would remind the Committee that the £800,000 is largely made up of money required for interest and repayment of principal in respect of money provided as a War measure to settle ex-service men on the land. That is how the amount is made up, and it is not fair to say that you must put this big sum against the smallholding movement when we know that it was given for a special purpose. The smallholding movement, as at present equipped and administered, is causing but a very small loss to the nation and to the county ratepayers. I trust that the Minister will go forward with a progressive policy for the establishment of more smallholdings, as there is a considerable demand for them.
      I realise that we are going through a financial crisis, and that it may be argued

      497
      that we have no money to invest in land. If you invest in land at the present time when it is at a low value, it will prove to be an increasing national asset. The money could be paid off over a period of years. If, unfortunately, war broke out to-morrow, money would have to be found, and therefore is it too much to ask that money should be found now to establish what is really a safeguard for peace. The smallholdings and allotments movements, together with a contented and increased rural population, will constitute one of the best safeguards for peace. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the matter. It would not put such a heavy financial strain upon the country if money were invested in land of the right character and in the right situation. I can give instances where, on estates in the county from which I come, there has been a large increase in population and an increase in capital value, and in agricultural products of every character.
      9.0 p.m.
      I was speaking to a man the other day who took a farm of 33 acres near to where I live. At the time he took the farm he employed six men, and to-day, with intensive cultivation, he is able to employ 46 men. That is an argument in favour of the assertion that you will be able to do something to relieve unemployment if you will only go in for intensive cultivation in this country and for the kind of produce we need. A rural population is a great national advantage. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) mentioned the very important matter of credits. Is it not possible to raise a sum of money whereby credits in the shape of loans could be given to the cultivators of the soil, and especially to the smallholder, who may have a thrifty wife and perhaps a boy and girl growing up? It would be an excellent idea, and I trust the Minister will give it careful consideration. It would not have been appropriate for this Debate to have closed without a farming Member having joined in it. I was brought up on the soil as were also my father, grandfather and great grandfather. I trust that the Minister will obtain his Estimates and that he will make good use of them, and be able to contribute to the prosperity of the country.
      Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The Minister, I feel sure, will be very grateful to the hon. Member for Orraskirk (Mr. Rosbotham) for having spoken to-night, because he is the only Member in the course of the Debate who has given almost unadulterated approval to the Minister and his work. On all sides of the Committee we have heard speeches from nominal supporters of the Government, some critical, and some highly provocative. Indeed one hon. Member indulged in a severe attack upon the Minister and the Government. I would not venture to address the Minister in the terms the hon. Member used, but I believe there was a good deal of justification for what he said. He accused the Minister and the Government of timidity, and when dealing with livestock, I almost expected him to say that they were a Government of rabbits because of their timidity. He criticised the Government very strongly indeed, and he had not a word of approval for anything the Minister had done.
      I assure the Minister that we do not wish to take away his pocket-money. We have not made an attack upon his salary as such, but we wish to mark our disapproval of the inadequacy of the policy of the Government and the administration of the Minister. The Debate has covered three main fields of agricultural and national interest. There has been the very vexed and difficult question of land drainage, with special features because of the special conditions existing in some of the districts. There has been the examination of the effect of tariffs upon the prosperity of the industry, and there has been the examination of marketing. I have taken notes of remarks made by the various Members, and I will refer to one or two of them without any desire to be censorious, but in order to express my disapproval of and disagreement with some of the things which have been said.
      The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) is not now in his place, but I shall not offend the Rules of the House or transgress against the rules of courtesy by saying that I was surprised to hear him say that while he was in favour of relief being given to the areas in his constituency and to neighbouring areas which are subject to floods, he was against giving grants. He was not willing

      499
      to allow a Government grant to be made in order to enable the drainage work of the constituency which he represents to be done more effectively and promptly. I was surprised to find that he came to the House representing a very seriously devastated area to propose that the local people should put up the money. I feel sure that that will not commend itself to the people whom he claims to represent.
      The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) made an examination of the problem of drainage which, coming from him with his knowledge and authority., must have helped the Committee very much. We had a further confirmation of the difficulty of this matter of drainage from the hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis), who is a coal-owner and knows how much the problem of subsidence is mixed up with the problem of drainage in Yorkshire and South Wales. The hon. Member made a suggestion that the efforts of the Minister in this matter should be joined with those of the Secretary for Mines and that they should take advice from the experts in mining. This is a very serious problem and it cannot be dissociated from mining operations in Yorkshire and other parts of the country. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave the Committee information which must have surprised many hon. Members. He stated that over an area of some hundreds of square miles in the Don Valley the land at no point reached the 25 foot contour of the ordnance datum. The water which rushes down to the sea, meeting the incoming tide, is bound to cause large portions of the country to be inundated.
      It is not that the land is generally low lying but that there are constant changes in the topography and in the levels of the land. If you take away a coal seam of five or six feet thickness the whole body of the earth is let down right from the surface on the worked out area. When that takes place in the bottom of a valley where a stream lies all kinds of changes in the flow of the water take place. In South Wales we find that slow-flowing rivers with only a very moderate fall have the bed sagging over large areas under which the minerals have been worked, and the flow of the water ceases. The bed of the river sags for a distance of a mile or two even beyond the point where no underground working has taken
      500
      place, but the original level remains on either side and you have a natural lake formed because of the subsidence of the ground. That is a very serious thing, especially when it is taken in conjunction with the condition to which the right hon. Member for Eipon referred, namely, the choking up of the channel, which takes place very much more rapidly where mines have been worked and where the coal tips, to which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) referred, are allowed to stand in miniature mountains and are washed away by every shower of rain into the rivers. The result is that the channel is choked by the additional debris from mining operations and from the stacking of coal, and then there is the sagging of the river beds. That is bound to cause very serious flooding, not only in Yorkshire but in all mining areas. Therefore, I hope the Minister will not regard this as a light matter.
      One hon. Member referred to the River Neath. I know the district very well and I know the conditions. Coal to the depth of 20, 30, 40 and 50 feet has been worked under certain parts of that valley and contiguous valleys. There are three rivers there, the Neath river, the River Llwchwr and the River Gwendraeth, running parallel within the coalfields, where enormous subsidence has taken place and where, as a result, there is every winter after every serious fall of rain considerable flooding and loss, not only to farmers but to the people generally. There is the case of the Rhondda river. Some time ago there was loss of life and very heavy damage caused by the overflowing of the Rhondda river. That was met by a grant. I do not know the exact sum, but I think the Government made a grant in that case of £10,000 or £15,000 in order that the necessary work should be carried on expeditiously. In regard to those three valleys, I was glad to hear from the Minister that he is contemplating the setting up of a catchment area board. I hope there will not be any delay and that he will be able to deal with the problem, especially in those areas where it is aggravated by subsidence, whether in the hinterland beyond the mouth of the river, or whether it takes place in connection with the choking of the river mouth itself.
      I hope that he and the Secretary of Mines will realise that great loss is caused

      501
      to the people residing in these areas. It is not purely an agricultural question that lies simply within, the authority of the Minister of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that under the Act there is provision for the coalowners and royalty owners to pay something towards the cost of these drainage works. I hope that he will not pile the burden of cost too heavily on the coalowners. We have no sympathy with the royally owner. He has taken his toll from the mining industry and Has not played his part in repairing any damage caused by mining operations, but the coalowner is sharing with, us the difficulties and hardships ensuing upon the coal trade depression, and we do not want the coalowner, who often is almost a bankrupt, to be saddled with additional responsibility in order to carry on works that may be of direct benefit to a landowner who is not paying his share, whether he is a royalty owner or an owner of the surface. I do not think the mining industry ought to be singled out for carrying the expense of these operations.
      The Minister recognises that here is a problem not only of interest to agriculturists or to certain people who have property interests but that it is a problem affecting the ordinary people who live in these flooded villages—people who are turned out of their homes in the dead of night, now and again, and who cannot go back for two or three weeks, whose belongings are damaged or destroyed and who are often poor people who cannot afford to sustain such loss. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will not hesitate to spend money. He said that he only had a small sum at his disposal. Cannot he get more? If not, he must be a timid man and the allegation of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) is true. If he is not timid, let him beard the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his den and say: "I am responsible to the people of this country and I am going to carry out that responsibility." Let him take his courage in both hands and the country will be grateful to him, not for being timid and complacent but for standing up and doing his work like the good husbandman that I believe him to be.
      Mr. CHRISTIE: I never suggested that the right lion. Gentleman was timid. I said that previous Governments have been
      502
      timid and that I hoped this Government was not going to commit the same error.
      Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member said that all Governments were timid and that this Government needed stiffening up. [He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in both hands. If he is not timid, why ask him to do that? The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) asked us to follow him. Unfortunately he is not in his place. We can sympathise with him, because he has been afflicted by the disease which has afflicted so many hon. Members, the disease of the tariff mania. It seems to destroy all sense of proportion in those it afflicts. I used to know the right hon. Member for South Molton as a Liberal and a staunch Free Trader. I regarded him as the last man to desert the Liberal faith, but now he is complaining that the Government are not hurrying along fast enough. He congratulates the Minister on having made a good start with vegetables and fruit and flowers; then he went on to wheat, and then stopped. "Why does not the Government," said the right hon. Gentleman, "go further and do the same with meat?" He told the Minister of Agriculture that if he goes to Ottawa he must make up his mind to come back with an agreement that no more foreign meat is to be allowed to come into this country. The right hon. Member for South Molton is a little confused. In one part of his speech he complained that New Zealand butter was selling in Devonshire and he went on to build up a case, he cannot argue it, on the sort of prejudice which we hear so often about this terrible competition from Russia, this menace, which is due to the absence of trade boards in Russia.
      The same right hon. Gentleman who finds Russian competition so effective because of the absence of trade boards in that country cannot explain the competition from New Zealand on the same ground. There is no solution for the troubles of agriculture in such a policy, and I advise the hon. Member for Norfolk South (Mr. Christie) not to stoop so low as he did in his references to Russia. It is infra dig; it is not done. It is much too cheap. If we are to understand the problem of agriculture in this country there must be some consistency. Take the question of marketing.

      503
      Here is a small country with only seven per cent. of its population engaged in agriculture, and with the best market in the world at its very doors. What would New Zealand give to have a market of 45,000,000 people to consume its farming products? What would any other country give to have such a market at its doors? Here we have a very small farming community with the best market in the world close at hand. You will never be able to prescribe a remedy for the difficulties unless you realise that there is something wrong with the marketing system which has grown up since feudal conditions prevailed and which has not changed very much in the last 50 or 60 years. Marketing methods must be improved. There must also be an improvement in the grading of produce and a better organisation for the distribution of the goods produced. If you do that you need not fear Russian competition even if they have no trade boards; and if New Zealand has any national advantages they are not advantages which should outweigh the one great advantage of having your best market close to your doors.
      The Minister of Agriculture must really bend his back to that problem. I know that he has courage. He must not pay any attention to hon. Members behind him who are obsessed with Russia and afflicted with a tariff mania. They will not solve the problem. The right hon. Gentleman must solve it; and he will not have done his duty unless he does all he can under the Marketing Act now on the Statute Book to see that all these improvements are effected. There is much to be done, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not lose a single day in pushing on with the reorganisation of marketing conditions and the reorganisation of the methods of dis-
      tribution. If he does he will provide work for some of the unemployed. In the matter of these drainage schemes a large number of our unemployed are eminently suited for that kind of work. There is no dearth of labour at any spot. In Yorkshire and in South Wales it is there on the spot. These men are now being paid for being idle. Would it not be better to spend some money in making them usefully employed.
      You talk about economy. There are committees and cliques attending meetings in all parts of the House planning how they can cut down the Social Services here and there. Why cannot they put their heads together to see how they can spend money usefully. That is the best form of economy. The most useful kind of work is the reclamation of the land, saving our own soil, and any expenditure would be repaid not only in the added value of the land but in the useful employment it would find for our people. Those people who have been provided with land for allotments are now to be deprived of it. That is shabby economy. It is of course too late to do anything for this season, but do not let another year go without plans for providing land free and accessible to the unemployed, who unfortunately must be unemployed next winter owing to world conditions. Do not let these people be denied their right to land for allotments. It gives them an opportunity of employment and a chance of growing their own food by their own labour, in the most honest form of work on the face of the earth, that is, work on their own mother land.
      Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,195,818, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 164.

      Division No. 246.]

      AYES.

      [9.25 p.m.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Grundy, Thomas W.

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

      Price, Gabriel

      Batey, Joseph

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

      Hirst, George Henry

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Daggar, George

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

      Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

      Lunn, William

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

      Groves, Thomas E.

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      NOES.

      Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

      Apsley, Lord

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

      Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

      Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

      Blindell, James

      Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

      Potter, John

      Bossom, A. C.

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Power, Sir John Cecil

      Boulton, W. W.

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

      Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

      Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

      Broadbent. Colonel John

      James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

      Ramebotham, Herwald

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Jamieson, Douglas

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Burghley, Lord

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Burnett, John George

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

      Renter, John R.

      Caine, G. R. Hall.

      Leckie, J. A.

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Levy, Thomas

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      Caporn, Arthur Cecil

      Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

      McKeag, William

      Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Christie, James Archibald

      McLean, Major Alan

      Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

      Clarry, Reginald George

      McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Macmillan, Maurice Harold

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Conant, R. J. E.

      Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Copeland, Ida

      Magnay, Thomas

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

      Scone, Lord

      Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

      Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

      Selley, Harry R.

      Crooke, J. Smedley

      Margeason, Capt. Henry David R.

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwelt)

      Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

      Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Sheppurson, Sir Ernest W.

      Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

      Milne, Charles

      Smiles. Lieut. Col. Sir Walter D.

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw.

      Somervell, Donald Bradley

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

      Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

      Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

      Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

      Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

      Elmley, Viscount

      Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

      Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

      Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

      Moreing, Adrian C.

      Stevenson, James

      Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

      Morgan, Robert H.

      Stones, James

      Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

      Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

      Storey, Samuel

      Fermoy, Lord

      Moss, Captain H. J.

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      Muirhead, Major A. J.

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Fox, Sir Gifford

      Munro, Patrick

      Taylor, Vice-Admital E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Nail, Sir Joseph

      Templeton, William P.

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Normand, Wilfrid Guild

      Touche, Gordon Cosmo

      Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

      Nunn, William

      Train, John

      Grattan-Doyle, sir Nicholas

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

      Graves, Marjorie

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Patrick, Colin M.

      Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Pearson, William G.

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Penny, Sir George

      Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

      Harris, Sir Percy

      Perkins, Walter R. D.

      Windsor Clive. Lieut.-colonel George

      Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

      Petherick, M.

      Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)

      Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)

      Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

      Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

      Sir Victor Warrender and Major

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Pike, Cecil F.

      George Davies.

      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 Twenty-seven minutes before Ten o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  COMMERCE (PROTECTION, YANGTZE RIVER).
  COMMERCE (PROTECTION, YANGTZE RIVER).
  FOREIGN CLOTH.
  FOREIGN CLOTH.
  RATINGS (CHANGE OF BRANCH).
  RATINGS (CHANGE OF BRANCH).
  KENYA (DEVELOPMENT).
  KENYA (DEVELOPMENT).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR-COACH STANDS, SEA FRONT.
  MOTOR-COACH STANDS, SEA FRONT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  FLOODS, DONCASTER AREA (MINES).
  FLOODS, DONCASTER AREA (MINES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.
Cyril Forster, formerly Lord Bishop of Southwark, now Lord Bishop of Winchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS, LIMITED (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELHAM VALLEY WATER AND HERTS AND ESSEX WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HENLEY-ON-THAMES WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERTFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON LORD NOEL-BUXTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they will give in-
882
formation as to their action in regard to the protection of national minorities at recent meetings of the Council of the League of Nations, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at recent meetings of the Council of the League of Nations important questions affecting national minorities have been dealt with, and notably at the January Council when the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, represented the British Government, a report was dealt with on the terrorisation, as it was called, which took place in the Ukraine in the autumn of 1930. That incident was the subject of a petition by no fewer than sixty-five Members of the British Parliament, and that fact indicates the public interest that is felt in a statement by His Majesty's Government on their action in regard to the question of minorities.
It is a question which forms a potent factor in international relations. In the debate on this subject last year all three speakers, each of whom had vast experience in the matter, insisted on its importance, and that importance is all the greater in a time of tension like the present. It is a main cause of friction between certain Powers, and where there is extreme friction the danger of incidents resulting in disaster must be taken into account. An illustration lies in the case of Danzig. Everyone knows what anxiety attaches to that. The German newspapers and the French newspapers have been full of it, the Germans prophesying a Polish occupation, and the French prophesying a German putsch. Lord D' Abernon recently described the situation in Danzig, and spoke of the corridor as the powder magazine of Europe. I have seen myself in Danzig the kind of difficulties which may lead at any moment to a dangerous incident. There is trouble both on the German and the Polish side, and it has more than once led to brawls which have resulted in loss of life. Quite lately the Polish Commissioner threatened resignation if the League Commissioner did not call in Polish troops. The aggravation which leads to this very dangerous situation arises in the main from the treatment of the German population in Polish territory, and the vitiating effect of all this has its reaction even on the Disarmament Conference, because the whole ground work of contented populations is in peril.
Another deplorable result is that a demand for the revision of frontiers is stimulated on every hand, and we gradually get the European States divided into two camps. We have Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria, and, closely associated with them, Italy, facing the camp which includes Poland and the States of the Little Entente, and this deplorable unrest can be assuaged by the just treatment of minorities. The Treaties affecting minorities were, of course, designed to avoid this friction which the Allies saw to be otherwise unavoidable. The difficulty of the situation was admittedly grave. We had at least 26,000,000 of minorities—some experts would put it much higher—and subordinate races were put in control of their former masters, very often members of a higher civilisation than themselves, but, after twelve years, harmony ought to be much easier than it has proved. The migrations are mainly over, agrarian reforms are completed, and the populations have settled down in a way that ought to facilitate harmony; but the Allies saw that alien domination necessitated safeguards of a strict kind. Frontiers on definitely ethnic lines were impossible, and therefore political unity could only be brought about through cultural diversity. Accordingly the new States were set up by the agency of the Allies, subject to conditions.
The Treaties affecting minorities laid it down that there should be, firstly, equality before the law—and a sample of that is in the denial of the prohibition of prejudice in regard to public employment—and, secondly, cultural rights, especially the right to primary schools in the minority language, the right to social institutions, and the right to the use of the minority language in the Courts. The execution of the Treaties was specially the subject of guarantee by the League. The question of guarantee, of course, is admittedly difficult, but let us recall the terms in which it was established. The Treaties say that the obligations of international concern are under the guarantee of the League, and the guarantee was defined by the Council in 1920 by the adoption of the Tittoni Report, which said that the guarantee meant that the League must ascertain that the provisions for the protection of minorities were always observed. A breach of
884
specific guarantees of that kind adds to the danger of its non-fulfilment. Again, the action of Mr. Arthur Henderson, when Foreign Secretary, led to hopes of the fulfilment of the guarantee, which decreased the danger, and it will be all to the good if that decrease can continue.
I would like to make a suggestion which I hope His Majesty's Government will view favourably. It is that, following the precedent of the White Paper issued on the powers of the League lately in connection with the Sino-Japanese events of last winter, the Government should issue a White Paper to set out for the use of Parliament an outline of the procedure, the powers and responsibilities of members of the Council in regard to minorities, and the nature of the guarantee assumed by the League in regard to the execution of the Treaties. How are these Treaties worked? Czecho-Slovakia is a fairly happy exception to the general regrettable rule. Others have a bad record. We see nationalism unchecked by prudence. Assimilation by the destruction of cultures is the order of the day. That was foreseen by the League and intended to be provided for, but it is still going on. The forms of oppression are similar, although they differ in degree. We have the suppression of schools, we have the suppression of political rights, and in an otherwise melancholy subject one source of humour is provided in the method by which political rights are suppressed—that is, the plan of denying the people the exercise of the suffrage by the brilliant invention of filling the ballot boxes with rubbish so that it is impossible to insert the ballot papers. Agricultural regulations have also been used to prevent the populations of unfavourable villages from getting to the poll by the issue of foot-and-mouth disease orders, which, as your Lordships know, on the Continent often preclude the movement of human beings as well as of animals. There is also the other more simple method of the flogging of voters on the way to the poll, which is more serious and which was proved to have been used in the case of the elections in Polish Upper Silesia.
Then there is widespread discrimination against minorities in regard to public appointments. I should like to give your Lordships two or three

885
examples from actual cases. I will not weary you with too many, or with the case of Italy, which, though it is an important case, does not come strictly into the question of Minority Treaties. The familiar case of Poland comes to the mind. The Allies expected great things of Poland, of a race with a great history, renowned in art and science, a race which should be—and let us hope will be—an example of wisdom to newer civilisations in her neighbourhood. But the policy of Poland, we must admit, has, up to now, in this matter been injurious to herself. The case of the German population is a very urgent matter. From the corridor and from Posen no fewer than a million Germans have already left the country since the annexation owing to conditions which they find intolerable. The dependence of any person requiring a, licence for a public position on the favour of local authorities is used to get rid of large sections of the people. Colonisation, which is the subject of discussion by the Council even to-day, is used to discriminate against minorities. The schools exhibit a figure which your Lordships will find it difficult to credit. Forty-five per cent. of the German children in Thorn and in Posen have been deprived of schools and driven to Polish schools. There has been a reduction of 50 per cent. in the actual number of schools. That is a direct infraction of the clause of the Treaty with Poland which lays it down that:
"Poland will provide…that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children…through the medium of their own language."
A very curious End interesting example has just come to my knowledge, for the truth of which I can vouch, in the treatment of the German Protestant Sunday schools. They apparently have a system very much like the English system, the teachers not being professional, and there has been a deliberate attack on the whole system of Sunday schools. Police break in, they lock up the teachers, they interrogate the children while the teachers are in an adjoining room under lock and key, they take the books. This is persecution of a mean kind and is apparently part of an attempt to suppress the use of the German language, as far as it can be suppressed, by actually diminishing the extent to which the
886
people know how to read it and write it. They may still, of course, use it in their houses, but it is an attempt to suppress the language.
There are more serious things still in the Ukrainian part of Poland. The Ukraine sounds remote from us, but it concerns all the world, because this is really a matter relevant to the interests of peace. The Ukrainians are a much greater race than we are accustomed to remember. There are 6,000,000 of them in Poland, and they are the largest section of the population in Canada apart from the British and French. Therefore, they are in a high degree a British concern. In the East Galician part of Poland, in the period between the end of the War and 1928, the primary schools were reduced in number by about two-thirds—from 2,400 down to 745. In Universities, where under Austrian rule the Ukrainians had eleven professorships, they have now none, whereas they were promised a University of their own in 1922 by the Polish Government.
In the part of Polish Ukrainia which was formerly in Russia, in Volynia, the conditions are harsher still. There is a harsh system of colonisation by ex-soldiers and these men—armed and not averse to lawlessness—persecute their neighbours in a highly regrettable manner. There is a system of suppression of the co-operative stores which are a feature of Ukrainian farming, and all this, I suppose, is part of the policy of keeping the peasants uninformed and disunited. There is also throughout the Ukraine a system of police certificates for anyone requiring a licence of any kind, which leads to a general system of police persecution. An unfavourable report by the police naturally settles the fate of a schoolmaster who does not curry favour with them. You cannot ignore in this connection one especially deplorable matter—that is the torture of prisoners in the prisons and of suspects who have incurred the disfavour of the Polish authorities. I regret that the evidence is convincing that mediæval torture is practised in these cases.
The allegations were described at the Council by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who was a delegate of the British Government, as shocking to the conscience of mankind. They were not enquired into as they ought to have been

887
by the Council. The report was adopted without inquiry having taken place. They are relevant to the question of terrorisation which was the subject of the Council's report in January. That terrorisation was sufficiently known from the report, but I will remind your Lordships of its nature by reading the words of a distinguished lawyer who has served the Crown in the Colonies, Sir Walter Napier, who wrote as follows:
"The villagers' leaders were rounded up, driven into some barn, stripped, held down and beaten with the thick sticks used for threshing. Doctors were forbidden to go from the towns to the villages, and peasants attempting to come to the towns for treatment were turned back by the police."
It is very repugnant to criticise a friendly State, but nothing is gained, as has been shown by discussion at the Council, by ignoring breaches of Treaties when those breaches are remediable. We must not forget that Poland has a very special cause to observe these Treaties because the annexations granted her were granted on condition that she gave autonomy to these very districts. That was laid down by the Ambassadors' Conference in 1923 of which our own country was a leading member.
Before I pass from examples I will say a word about the notorious case of Yugo-Slavia. The policy of suppression which is prevailing there is sufficiently indicated by the fact that the Correspondent of The Times was expelled from Yugo-Slavia not many days ago and other correspondents as well. You have the flagrant case there of the browbeating of the Bulgarian population, deeply attached to its own schools and churches and forbidden to have either—punished for the use of their own names, for the use of their own Bible, and prohibited their own language, even when spoken in their own homes, if it is overheard. Well, we all know that the Serbian view is to deny separate nationalisation. If that is the case the obvious remedy is to refer the point to The Hague Court. Until that is done Yugo-Slavia is defying the plainest Treaty obligations.
Much the same conditions prevail in regard to Albanians in Yugo-Slavia. The Albanians are a very helpless people. Their nationality is not denied by the Serbs but in contrariety to the Treaty they have no schools of their own, no religious teaching that suits them in the Serbian schools, and
888
colonisation of their country is carried on with the aid of extreme pressure upon their nationals who own land to part with it. They have sent to the League ten petitions in ten years but they have not received any reply in any single case.
It seems to me that His Majesty's Government might consider the question of publishing extracts from the Consular Reports. They must be full of facts and it is surely a question whether, carefully selected with regard to the susceptibilities of the governing States, it might not be fitting to publish relevant extracts with regard to the carrying out of the Treaty. The Foreign Office is familiar with the need of urging conciliation upon the Yugo-Slavian Government. Good advice has served the interests of peace and of humanity before. In offering it we have followed the tradition of British concern for justice and it behoves us to maintain that tradition.
We are often told there is another side to all this, and there is another side. In my judgment there are obligations on both sides. Minorities ought to try to work with their new co-patriots and we ought to distinguish between extremists' and legitimists' claims. No one wants to support claims that are disloyal. Minorities are commonly charged with disloyalty and their irredentism, where it exists, is said to be fostered from outside. I would say this for the National Minorities Congress, that it is not irredentist, it is markedly not encouraging extremists' claims.
It is very tempting to wish that minority claims did not exist at all and could be altogether damped down, but those who know the minorities by personal contact are quite convinced that suppression of the claims is not a feasible policy to pursue. Of course there are obligations on both sides. The new State ought not to make co-operation impossible. Real statesmanship would bid for the loyalty of minorities as far as possible, and it ought to encourage the constitutional party against the irredentists. Fanatical nationalism is the pet folly of all young States and it is the advice of older States that can in some degree help to cure it.
It seems to me that the best hope of progress is in the modification of the machinery of the League. That machinery has failed to give to the

889
minorities the sense that they can claim their rights. Petitions are sent by them; they go to the Secretariat; they are receivable on very strict conditions. If received they go to Committees of Three. Exceedingly few come before the Council. In 1929 forty-two petitions were received and only two were submitted to the Council. The appellants are left in total ignorance of what becomes of their petition. There has been improvement, I grant, but it is admittedly inadequate. Even if the petitions are referred to a Committee the discussion is still shrouded in secrecy. The minorities do not know whether their petition has been rejected by the Committee of Three or what action has been taken, or what views were held, or what reply was made by the interested Government; and they have no chance of making any counter reply. The case is tried in the absence of the plaintiff while the defendant has the advantage of reply and, moreover, of a secret talk with the judge.
The Madrid Council made alterations in 1929 but I think it would be admitted that they were too trivial to have much affected the situation. They led to the publication of the number of petitions but not much more, and the aggrieved minorities still naturally think that the League ignores them and therefore the most undesirable distrust in the League has arisen. Publicity would have allayed a great deal of suspicion to which the long delays that have occurred have added. In fact the Council has given an impression of inactivity. Respect for the Treaties needs the sustained interest of the Council and that cannot be given while action only follows petitions. The petitions are produced in very difficult circumstances; the victims are naturally afraid of punishment if they speak. Therefore the documentation of the petitions is bad. The initiators are watched and sometimes punished. It is agreed that the situation really needs a Permanent Minorities Commission, collecting information for the Council and enabling members to exercise their duty of initiative.
The greatest authorities support this plan. Indeed Professor Gilbert Murray has advocated an extension of it in the sense that he would like to see agents of the League established in the Treaty countries. It is enough, perhaps, if I
890
quote one authority whose influence will not be questioned, the present Prime Minister, who in an article in 1929 wrote:
"The technical difficulties of presenting petitions should be removed, and the defence of the accused responsible States should be made public. A Permanent Minorities Commission ought to be established similar to the Mandates Commission, and the diplomacy of hush should be banished from its work."
If His Majesty's Government cannot see their way to go as far as this, then I would like to suggest a smaller improvement. It would be a committee of experts to inform the Committee of the Council.
Mr. Henderson said, as a member of the Council, that the President of the Council has too many duties to carry out, and a Committee of the Council is not very suitable for the purpose, because its members are men of ministerial functions and not, admittedly, experts in the minority matter. An advisory body would invite the reply of the minority without injuring the position of the accused State. It would not be asking very much of that State to permit information to be collected, when there is no question of executive action for such an expert committee. The wishes of the accused State cannot be the sole governing factor if we are to avoid a situation which is dangerous. Whatever method be adopted, neutral States, such as our own, may well invite the co-operation of the interested State in a reform which concerns all. No one denies the great urgency of removing the dangerous friction arising from the minority matter. Mr. Henderson was only stating a truism when he said that "the execution of the Treaties is essential to the maintenance of peace."
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I hope you will allow me to add a few observations to those offered to you by my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton, and at the same time to thank him for bringing the matter before this House. It may sometimes be wondered why one feels justified in asking your Lordships to give consideration to this problem, but I think I can mention two facts which certainly in my opinion justify your Lordships in devoting a few minutes of your time to this matter. In the first place the problem is one of considerable magnitude—much greater magnitude than one usually thinks—because in each country there are certain minorities, some numerous and

891
some small. They are, of course, as their name conveys, in a minority, very often a small minority, but the aggregate number of persons who live under the Minority Treaty conditions is considerable. It is difficult to give the figure. It is stated variously as 20,000,000, 30,000,000, 40,000,000 and even 50,000,000, by people who wish to make little or much of their argument, but I think one is fairly within the mark in saying that there are at least 30,000,000 persons who are affected by the proper administration of the Minority Treaties throughout Europe; and certainly if anyone is responsible for the Minority Treaties it is the British Government. At Paris, as Lord Cecil of Chelwood will remember well, the question was considered at considerable length, and it was not very easy to obtain the passage of the Minority Treaties at all. I was not there, but I have been informed that had it not been for the insistence of the representatives of this country the Minority Treaties might never have come into existence. If that is so, it seems to me that His Majesty's Government, and their representatives in Geneva, have a peculiar share of responsibility in seeing that these Treaties are made effective.
I do not propose to deal with the question of Poland, which was mentioned by my noble friend, firstly, because I prefer to avoid reference to any particular nation in this respect in the observations that I am going to submit, and secondly, because I have always realised that in Poland particularly and in all these countries they have had political difficulties in forming their Governments which we find it hard to estimate. Nevertheless, we are brought up against the situation rather abruptly by the events in the Ukraine and the way the minority have been treated by the Polish Government and the League of Nations. My interest in this matter dates from the time of the War. I have not the advantage of knowing the East as long as my noble friend has, but immediately after the War I did visit those countries interested particularly in minorities, and it was evident to anyone who went there at that time that there was a problem upon which the whole peace of Europe, and perhaps of the world, would depend. Upon the proper solution of the relations of these minorities to their surrounding
892
population depended, and I believe still depends, the future peace of Europe.
In all these countries you find great groups of persons who differ from their neighbours in almost every respect—one might say in every respect. They differ in their language, in their religion, in their cultural associations, in their traditions and history and in every particular from the persons who surround them, and, as your Lordships know very well, they have always been the cause of a great deal of trouble in the East of Europe. The War changed this in two respects. In the first place it liberated a very large number of persons who had been held under the yoke of foreign rulers. It liberated a greater number than it subjugated in their turn after the War, and to that extent the War was a war of liberation; but on the other hand it did subjugate to new allegiances many millions of persons, and these were, as a rule, persons who, if not superior to their neighbours, certainly thought themselves to be so. Instead of the Rumanians being subjected to the Hungarians and the Poles to the Germans and the Czechs to the Austrians, the Germans became subordinated in one place and the Hungarians and Austrians in another, and it was perfectly evident that in those circumstances nothing could bring conciliation to Europe except a very generous exercise of the rights of Governments over these people.
This fact made itself evident to our representatives at Versailles in drawing up the Peace Treaty and they, as your Lordships know, enforced more or less the acceptance of what is known as the Minority Treaties. The motive of those who drew those Treaties was perfectly clear. It was to make the change as little irksome as possible to these new minorities. This is very well stated in a report drawn up by three respected members of the League of Nations, M. Adatci, Sir Austen Chamberlain, and Senor Quinones de Léon in 1929, when they stated:
"The purpose of the Treaties was to ensure that the minorities should, for the future, enjoy conditions which would enable them, without loss of their religious or cultural heritage, to bring to the States of which they now form a part that loyal cooperation on which the Assembly laid stress in its resolutions of 1922."

893
In order to achieve this result, which was evidently the desire of all at that time, the Treaties provided very definitely that their language should be secured to them, their religion should be secured to them, their right to use their own language in the Law Courts should be secured to them, and their education provided for in a very liberal way, schools being provided in which the mother tongue should be the medium of education, and so forth. By that means, it is clear, the framers of the Treaties hoped to prevent the attempts which they felt would undoubtedly be made to denationalise these people immediately after the War.
But unfortunately, I think, they did not take sufficiently into account the national feeling that existed at that time and has existed ever since. This public feeling in the various countries was certainly for many years at first, and still is I think, definitely opposed to any suggestion that these minorities should be in any kind of privileged position in regard to their language or their education. That has been the difficulty that has had to be met. I am sure that some of the Governments would have given better treatment to the minorities if they had not felt that public opinion was against them. We saw it in the years immediately following the War, when all kinds of difficulties were put in the way of the administration of these Treaties in the various countries. School areas were rearranged in such a way that the numerical proportions did not necessitate the establishment of minority schools; land legislation was so adjusted that many of the minority proprietors, at any rate, thought—I believe with some justice—that they were not getting the same treatment as other people. There was a quite unnecessary insistence on the use of the State language. I remember in one place I went to no one was allowed to speak German on the telephone at all. All that kind of petty interference with the freedom of the individual characterised these countries for several years after the conclusion of the War.
The result of it is that we are now reaping the fruit of that failure to reconcile the minorities to their position. It has kept alive an irritation that extends into other countries than the particular countries where these minorities exist—a feeling of irritation amongst
894
large numbers of people. Anyone would bear me out who has travelled in any district such as East Prussia, Danzig, Upper Silesia, the part of Czecho-Slovakia by Komaron, the Banat in Yugo-Slavia, Transylvania, the Bulgar-Serb frontier, the districts round Trieste and between Croatia and Italy, or in South Tyrol. You will find that on both sides of these frontiers the one burning question is the treatment of the minority on the other side. That is very largely answerable for the fact that the public mind is still in a ferment by reason of the fact that they believe—and I think are justified very largely in believing—that the minorities are not getting their rights. So long as that belief exists, it is impossible to hope for permanent peace.
People say, and with some justification perhaps, that matters are not so bad as they were after the War. It is true that the gross oppression and the very objectionable forms of interference with private liberty have ceased, though perhaps not everywhere. It may be that some of the minorities have ceased to complain. I was told the other day of a very important minority visited by a friend of mine. He said: "They have given up complaining; they feel it absolutely hopeless. They have no hope either of their own Government or of the League of Nations. They say it is useless to struggle against the inevitable." That may be true, but at the same time it is rather sad that that should be the outcome of a War which was fought for the purpose of preserving the rights of small nationalities. However, there are a considerable number of minorities who will not throw up the sponge, and who will hold out whatever happens. The problem there certainly is not settled.
In my view the minority question is growing in importance rather than diminishing. It is difficult to give reliable information, chiefly because the League of Nations keeps its information to itself. It is very difficult to get out of the League of Nations the information which it must certainly possess in regard to the position of minorities all over Europe. But under the recent regulations which were passed two or three years ago at Madrid, it was laid down that the number of petitions at any rate was to be published. I can give your Lordships two rather striking figures.

895
The numbers were published in the year ending June, 1930, and the year ending June, 1931. In the former year the number of petitions was 57; in the latter year it was 204. That shows there was an increase in one year of 147 petitions from minorities sent to the League of Nations. When one realises that there are very considerable difficulties even in submitting petitions in proper form to the League it shows that the problem is certainly not diminishing. Another figure which you can also gather from this publication is the number of sessions given to this question by Committees of the League of Nations. In the first year that I have mentioned the number of sessions was 19; in the year ending June, 1931, it was 111. So that there have been 92 more meetings of Committees rendered necessary for the purpose of considering these petitions of minorities and it is clear that the work is increasing.
I think anybody who reads the proceedings of the Council of the League must realise that at almost every meeting they now have some item on the agenda which has reference to minorities, and I think the work must be becoming very onerous for the members of the council. This was one reason why some of us advocated very strongly what has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton—the creation of a Permanent Special Commission of Minorities. I feel sure it would be a saving of time, and would have very great advantages. But I do not want to discuss that question now. All I can say is that these facts that I have mentioned show that we have not finished with this question at all. There is still very wide discontent in many parts of Europe, and that discontent has its repercussions in neighbouring countries, where you have only to know how the Germans and Austrians speak about the conditions of affairs in the Tyrol to realise that this mismanagement of the minority question in the Southern Tyrol has a very evil effect upon public opinion in Germany and Austria. In fact it is really poisoning the whole political atmosphere of Europe.
Some people blame the Council. I do not do that. I think the Council has recognised its responsibilities, and attempts to do justice to the petitions, but in my opinion the Council has failed
896
in a very important function, one to which the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has drawn attention—namely, its function under the general clause of the Treaty by which the rights of minorities are put under the guarantee of the League of Nations. The clause says:
"The country concerned agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, linguistic, or religious minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations."
I have always read those words as meaning, quite apart from the question of procedure or how it is to be done, that the whole League guarantees the rights of these minorities, and that was the view of the Committee presided over by Signor Tittoni in 1920, in which they reported that in their opinion the stipulation meant that "the League must ascertain that the provisions for the protection of minorities are always observed." That is precisely what the League has never tried to do.
It has received these petitions, it has dealt with them as thoroughly as it can, it has adjudicated upon them as justly as it can, but to make an inquiry of to satisfy itself that the provisions of the Treaties are being observed in various countries, quite independently of the particular special petitions that are brought before it—that the Council has always felt itself unable to do. I believe that if it had set itself to ascertain, as private individuals have done, what is the actual situation in any country with regard to legislation affecting minorities, and particularly with regard to administration affecting those minorities, it could have done a great deal, in communication with the Governments concerned, to get rid of the most objectionable things which exist at present.
I would like to say one word of what I think could be done. Some of the complaints of the minorities very largely arise now out of the system of procedure that was adopted by the Council in 1929. Rules were made especially for the purpose of rendering the work of the League easier with regard to petitions. One of those rules was that petitioners must satisfy certain definite conditions, which were stated, and if they do not satisfy those conditions the petitions are turned down. They are not submitted to any Committee to enquire into and they get no further. I am told—I do not think it

897
is always the case—that the petitioners do not even receive a reply to say why their petition was not laid before any Committee. In the figures given in the last publication I find that out of 204 petitions last year no fewer than 131 were decided to be non-receivable; that is to say, nearly two out of every three were turned down for one reason or another without being submitted to any Committee of the Council to investigate. No doubt those who turned them down felt they were justified in doing so, either because their form was not suitable, or because they were couched in too vigorous language, or because they dealt with some case that had already been considered, or because, for some other reason, they offended against the resolution. But it is clear, if 131 out of 204 are turned down without any notice being taken of them, so far as the petitioners know, that it must leave a feeling of very great discontent among the minorities. That is one of the grievances they have.
Another grievance they have in regard to the action of the League of Nations is what seems to be the inordinate delay that takes place in the hearing of petitions. The last case is a good example, the one mentioned in regard to the Ukraine. The trouble took place in September, 1930, and the final hearing before the Council was in January, 1932, so it was kept waiting for various reasons for nearly a year and a half. That is not due to any delay on the part of the office. It is due to the fact that the method adopted by the Council for dealing with these matters does not lend itself to acceleration. They have to bring together two or three important statesmen who are members of the League or of the League Council, and they have to have time to consider the matter. The delay is one of the most serious difficulties that ought to be met as far as possible.
The third complaint of the minorities is due to the secrecy of the League itself. When a case comes before the Council it is published, but when it is investigated privately it is not published unless the Goverment concerned gives consent. What is the result? In about fifty cases (other than those which were brought before the Council) which required the consent of the Government, the consent was given in twenty-one cases,
898
and if you look at the terms of the consent and the particulars of the petition you will find, what is natural, that three out of every four were petitions which had been decided in favour of the Government. Of course, therefore, the Government did not withhold its consent. The minorities believe that their complaints are concealed, that they do not get the proper treatment which they ought to receive, and, although these matters may appear to your Lordships perhaps a little unimportant, the whole minority question consists in a vast aggregation of seemingly unimportant little incidents. It may be quite an unimportant question whether a peasant child shall be forced to go seven miles to school before he can receive instruction in his own language, but, after all, that peasant has now a Treaty right to it, and the whole question becomes one of international importance.
It is because these minorities have their Treaty rights that the whole question assumes the importance which it does, and it is because they think that they are denied these rights that we find this feeling amongst minorities that they cannot get redress from the international organ, the League of Nations, which was established for the very purpose of doing them justice. The result is that, instead of looking to the League of Nations for redress and justice, they look elsewhere. They are now looking, not to us, but to Germany, for the German representatives on the League of Nations have become the protagonists of the minorities. Germany had nothing to do with the drawing up of the Minority Treaties. Germany objected herself to accept the obligations of the Treaties when she came into the League. Now if anybody raises a question in the Assembly or Council it is the German representative who takes the leading part. It seems to be a great mistake on the part of our Government to allow that situation to grow up. The rights of minorities are something which the British public have always interested themselves in, and I should be glad if we could see some more active steps taken by our representatives in this particular direction.
Next September the question of the procedure will be certain to be re-opened. From the discussion which took place

899
in the Council it is clear that it will be re-opened, and it ought to be re-opened, because, when the new procedure was instituted it was understood that it was going to be experimental and temporary. Therefore the time is ripe when this might be done. I suggest to my noble friend who is going to reply for the Government that he should keep an open mind on this particular question as to whether the British representative at Geneva should not raise the question of procedure and have the whole thing thrashed out very carefully. I may say that we are sending a petition from the League of Nations Union to His Majesty's Government in order to achieve this result and I hope it will be successful. I must apologise for speaking at such great length but I was anxious to take this opportunity of bringing the question so far as I know anything about it clearly before your Lordships.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am sure none of your Lordships will think that any apology was needed from my noble friend Lord Dickinson for giving so interesting an account of this very important question. He certainly was fully justified in saying that there is a historical connection between this country and the minorities question. He referred to what happened at the Paris Conference. He might have gone very much further back than that. If he refers to the records of the Berlin Conference, which resulted in the Treaty of Berlin, he will find that the British Foreign Minister of that day was part author, I think, with the French Foreign Minister of the general proposition that wherever a country received a substantial increase of territory by Treaty there ought to be put upon that country the duty of protecting its minorities. I quote from memory but I believe that is the substance of a clause of the Treaty of Berlin.
Undoubtedly this matter is of very great importance. The question of minorities is responsible for a great deal of the unrest which unhappily still exists, particularly in Central Europe. I think, however, that it is only fair to add that the question is one of the very greatest delicacy and difficulty. There is not the slightest doubt that there are always, as my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton said, two sides to every minority dispute. On the one side there is the
900
desire of the majority country to unify its territory and its population, to strengthen its position and in the often abused name of patriotism to try to stamp out all opposition that may exist to that unity. On the other side you have the very natural feeling, the very laudable feeling if you like, of the minority that it ought to maintain its separate existence inside the State. It values immensely its connection with its old nationality probably, and it has a very strong sentimental desire—I do not use the word sentimental in any derogatory sense—to maintain its position. It is obvious that when these two tendencies clash there will be a position of very great difficulty and very great delicacy. Though I am disposed to agree with both my noble friends that a great deal of injustice and oppression still exists in Europe—I am inclined to think it has diminished—yet one must admit that there is on the other side a good deal of what, if it happened in our own country, we should undoubtedly call disloyalty and sedition. It is that difficulty which makes the position of the League in this matter and the position of any one who has to deal with it extremely delicate, requiring in my judgment extreme caution—and I am not disposed to be unduly cautious in these matters—or otherwise you may easily do a great deal more harm than good.
My noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton said that in some respects this minority question was a powder magazine and I agree with him. It is full of explosive material. He cited as an instance the case of Danzig, but I think he would agree that that is not a typical minority question, though there is a position there of grave difficulty which has occupied a great part of the attention of the League of Nations. You have there a State which is predominantly German in a country which is predominantly Polish and the clash of two nationalities who are apparently almost always inimical to one another when brought together. In my judgment it is not a typical minority case because it does not come within the Minority Treaties. It is a case of two apparently irreconcilable sections of people placed together in a certain position by the operation of the Treaties.
You will find that position of course in other places where a considerable block of territory has been transferred

901
from one country to another, carrying with it large populations which do not belong to the new country but do belong to the old State, as in the case of Transylvania. You will find among people in that situation not only a desire to be treated with absolute fairness and impartiality, but a vehement protest against the existence of the political arrangement altogether and a desire to have it reversed. It is an irredentist feeling which cannot be dealt with by Minority Treaties but must be dealt with by other remedies as far as it can be dealt with at all. In some cases, as in the Balkans, an attempt has been made with a considerable amount of success to deal with the difficulty by an exchange of population. There has been a transfer in the Balkans of population from Turkey to Bulgaria and also from Greece to Bulgaria, and vice versa from Bulgaria to Greece and Bulgaria to Turkey, in order to get a more or less unified population. Though it is too early to say what are the practical results of that it seems to me a good thing to do where it can be done. Obviously, however, that is a remedy which is only applicable in certain cases.
In other cases something might be done—I wish very much that the countries of Europe would consider this seriously—not so much by giving minorities complete equality, which really does not meet the case, but by giving what is called cultural autonomy. That means giving them as far as can be done their own cultural institutions in language, schools, religion, and so on, quite apart from the nationality of the majority. I believe that in many cases that might lead to a considerable alleviation of the present position. There are, however, cases to which I have already referred where the real desire is not for fair treatment of the minorities in their new countries but a reversal of the Treaty provisions by which they were transferred to other countries. Then there are cases where a minority which used to be a minority in one country has become a minority in another country. There are, for instance, the Germans in Transylvania, who were a minority under Magyar Government and are now a minority under Rumanian Government. I do not think that any practical difficulty arises in cases of that kind.
902
The cases we really have to deal with are cases of people who have become minorities in a country whereas they were part of a majority before recent changes were made, people who have been transferred from a country where their nationality had control of the government of the country. The Germans in Bohemia form as good an instance as any other, but there are numbers of such cases, and those are the cases which cause difficulty. They are put in a position which is much less favourable to them and a position which is regarded as a danger by the new country. It was to meet that danger that the Minority Treaties were agreed to at Paris, and it has been the practice of the League that when any new country is admitted it should accept the same obligations as to minorities as are imposed by the Treaties and they broadly say that equal rights are to be given to the minorities as to the majorities in those countries. Even there the difficulties are very great, as I am sure Lord Noel-Buxton and Lord Dickinson will admit. In a very considerable number of the cases that have come before the League there is the gravest question whether the action of the majority country has been an infringement of the equal rights of the minorities. Very delicate and difficult questions arise. A country, for example, passes an agrarian law providing for splitting up great estates, and in fact all, or the majority of, the great estates are held by one particular race, a minority race. Is that a case where the minority race is receiving equal treatment or not? The law is perfectly general, but it practically only applies to the minorities and you evidently have a very grave difficulty raised in such a case.
Then take the case of very severe laws against seditious action. It may well be that the only people who suffer from that are members of a minority, but can you say that that is an infringement of equal rights? I do not say that these questions are insoluble, but they are considerable and they are very difficult. I may perhaps be allowed to say in passing that though I fully agree with Lord Noel-Buxton as to the horrors, I am afraid alleged truly, which have occurred in the Ukraine with regard to the punishment of political prisoners, I think they are really much more a criticism, not on the questions of minorities, but on

903
the question of the humane treatment of prisoners, which is one of the questions before the League and one which undoubtedly ought to be dealt with. There is no doubt that although in that case it was true it was the Ukrainians who suffered, there are numbers of cases all over Europe where it is not a question of minorities, but the most shocking barbarities are taking place by the mere suppression of political activities by the Party in power.
That is only by the way; but taking these difficulties into consideration I have always felt, or I have felt for many years, that you will never be able really to deal with this question satisfactorily and attain a really established set of principles for dealing with minorities except by our old English plan of gradually building up a Common Law, a jurisprudence on the subject. That is the main reason why I personally adhere Very much to the proposals made by Lord Noel-Buxton with regard to a modification of the procedure of the League. But the matter is not easy. I am sorry to appear to be raising difficulties, but it is essential that your Lordships should understand the position as it exactly is. The Minority Treaties say that certain rights are to be secured to the minority and if they are broken it is for the League and the Council of the League to see as far as they can that justice is done, but it is expressly provided that the Council can only be set in motion by the action of a member of the Council; it cannot be set in motion by a petition from the minority.
That was discussed very much at Paris. I happened to be a member of the Committee of the Conference which dealt with it and personally I regretted that decision, but it was decided by the Powers assembled that it would be going too far to allow a minority to bring the matter before the Council on its own motion. The minority has to get hold of a member of the Council and induce that member to bring the matter before the Council. That is the origin of the Committees of Three. It was found to be an intolerable burden to get single countries to undertake the difficult part of arraigning another country for its treatment of minorities, and so it was arranged that the petitions when they came in should be examined by these Committees of Three. There you get ad hoc Committees
904
of Three to examine petitions—often only one petition or one series of petitions dealing with the same set of facts or with similar facts, and sometimes you will have as many as two or three Committees appointed during the same session to deal with different matters.
I cannot think that is good procedure from any point of view. It means that you get no continuity except such as is furnished by the members of the Secretariat who attend the Committees of Three. Very properly the Secretariat's duty is confined to carrying out the policy which the Council and Committees lay down and not to have a policy of its own. Therefore you really have no method of continuity and consequently no method of the growth of what I have called a Common Law on the subject. I cannot think that is of advantage to anybody. I do not believe it is of advantage to the majority countries and I am sure it is not to the advantage of the minority. I think both sides would be much better off if they knew there was being gradually built up a system of law. I always hoped that would be accepted. No doubt you are in a great difficulty. You cannot modify the Minority Treaties except with the consent of all the Parties. That is one of the fundamental principles of International Law. Therefore, if it is held that this is a modification of those Treaties you obviously cannot do it without their consent.
What I should venture to ask the members of the Government to consider very carefully, and particularly my noble and learned friend, Viscount Hailsham, because we all know his great competence in matters of this kind, is whether it is really true that such a proposal as was adumbrated by Lord Noel-Buxton is a modification of the Minority Treaties. I agree that if you set up anything like a Permanent Commission that would be a new procedure, but if the Council merely say: "We think it would be very convenient to have our Committees of Three advised by experts as to what they can do and what they cannot and what they ought to do and ought not, and therefore we propose to create a small panel of experts who will examine all these petitions as they come in and make their report to the Secretariat or the Committee of Three, and then the Committee could act on that as to

905
whether they would bring it before the Council," I do not myself see, though I do not pretend to express an opinion of value, why that should be a modification of the Minority Treaties. If it is not so it might be possible to get the Council to accept that as part of their procedure in future, and if it is held to be a matter of procedure it could be accepted by a majority of the Council. I should like to have that examined because I feel that it would help to establish that jurisprudence which I think so desirable.
As to delay I do not think you can get rid of it, and I do not think you ought to because evidently in these matters your first business should be to try to convince the Government concerned that they ought to behave better and ought to give some guarantee of better behaviour. To take the case he had in view, of Poland and the Ukraine, the delay was caused in that case, I understood, by efforts made to induce the Polish Government to give some kind of guarantee, some statement that they were going to institute a new system, which would remove the difficulties. That must take time. It is not a question of machinery, or of getting a Committee together, but it is a question of the difficulty of carrying on delicate negotiations with rapidity. I repeat that will have to take time.
There are other changes which are of a more technical character with which I will not bother your Lordships. I only wish to say, in conclusion, that there is one matter in which I agree with Lord Dickinson. I think it would be of the greatest advantage to have greater publicity in these matters. I am sure it would do nobody any harm, and I cannot believe there is any serious difficulty in that being carried out. It would be much better to tell the minorities why their petitions have not been accepted, and, if it can be done, to give them an opportunity of making such explanation as they can make, and allow the world to see what the League of Nations is doing in this matter—I believe it is doing it with reasonable success—and not permit this atmosphere of suspicion to exist. I am sure that my noble friends are right in attributing great importance to this question. I am equally sure that it is a matter which must be dealt with with careful regard to the interests and sus-
906
ceptibilities of all concerned, and it is a matter in which, when it comes to be examined, perhaps at the next Assembly or a near date, I trust the League may have the great assistance and guidance of His Majesty's Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the three noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships on this Motion are all, if they will allow me to say so, persons who have by study of the problems and by visiting the districts, and in one case at any rate, that of my noble friend, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, by his attendance and great help at the meetings of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations, qualified themselves to speak with authority on the topic before the House. I only have to address your Lordships because, naturally and properly, the views of the Government are required, and it unfortunately happens that the representative of the Foreign Office now sits in another place. Your Lordships and the noble Lord who introduced the Motion will forgive me if I speak with some reserve and some diffidence on the subject of the Motion, because I cannot help feeling that this is a matter in which it is important to be very cautious in the language which one uses. The noble Lord himself compared the situation to that of a powder magazine, filled with a highly explosive mixture. The introduction of a torch, even for the beneficent purpose of throwing light, is apt to produce very startling results under those conditions.
The interest of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in this matter can only be an interest arising from the desire to secure the observance of Treaties, some of which they themselves had a considerable share in framing, and all of which have a direct bearing upon the peace and good will prevailing in Europe. I think it is satisfactory that the noble Lord himself considers, if I understood him correctly, that the Treaties, if properly carried out in the spirit of those concerned in their framing, would get rid of the existing difficulties, and that it is not so much in the obligations which have been imposed, but in the spirit in which they have been carried out, that difficulty is created. Speaking for myself, I thought that the advice which Lord Noel-Buxton himself gave

907
was very wise advice, when he said that on the one hand the minorities would be well advised if they did not make their rights under the Minority Treaties a cloak for sedition, and if they did not attempt to exploit their privileges in the direction of seeking to get free of a domination which many of them regretted, and on the other hand that the States in which those minorities were incorporated should do their best to make it possible for the minorities to become loyal citizens, and corporate and contented members of the body politic in which they were now incorporated.
The procedure with regard to minorities, the manner in which it has grown and developed, has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood this afternoon, and your Lordships may remember it was dealt with at some length in a speech delivered just a year ago by Lord Parmoor, then President of the Council, in the debate which Lord Dickinson then initiated, in the absence of Lord Noel-Buxton, on the same topic. Lord Parmoor then described the working of the Treaties and the development of the procedure whereby minorities were enabled to address themselves directly to the Secretary-General of the League, and the composition and functions of the Committees of Three, to which allusion has been made. This procedure, as your Lordships know full well, is for all practical purposes the same to-day as when Lord Parmoor spoke upon the subject.
To come to the particular cases which Lord Noel-Buxton cited, my noble friend Lord Cecil has pointed out, and of course the noble Lord knows even better than I do, that the position at Danzig is really not a minority question at all, though the position of minorities in Poland may produce reaction in Danzig, but under the Treaties which followed the War Danzig is a separate and independent entity and quarrels with Poland on equal terms. However acute the Danzig problem may become at any given moment, it is not one which can possibly be solved by any alteration in the procedure with regard to minorities.
As regards the Albanian grievances in Yugo-Slavia, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have very little information. Only one recent petition on the subject has been received by the
908
League of Nations and the result has not been reported. I believe it is still under consideration by a Committee of Three. The grievances of the Macedonians against Yugo-Slavia are much more largely in the public eye. The modern Macedonian movement is very much what it was as long ago as the days of Mr. Gladstone. By the Treaties of 1913 the largest slice of Turkish Macedonia was given to Yugo-Slavia, with the result that large masses of Macedonians emigrated to Bulgaria. The Macedonians are linguistically more nearly allied to the Bulgarians than to the Serbs. The Yugo-Slav Government apparently aims at unification and ironing out of differences between its constituent populations, but we still have in our memories the reminder in the expression macédoine of what a mixture Macedonia really is.
With reference to the question whether the Bulgarians in Macedonia are a minority, one has to remember that the Yugo-Slav Government have taken up the attitude that there is no Macedonian minority in Yugo-Slavia, and that contention is one upon which the League of Nations, as far as I know, has never pronounced any judgment. Expert writers on the subject are divided in their opinion, and the best information which the Foreign Office is able to give me with regard to the position of the Macedonians in Yugo-Slavia is that the facts themselves are very obscure, that widely different conclusions are drawn from the facts by the persons and Governments who are best qualified to know and understand them, and that the League of Nations has explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the point; and we think it would be unwise and very rash for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to pronounce any public judgment upon it.
The Macedonian revolutionary organisation, which is a relic of the Turkish days, does a great deal to prejudice the whole question, because it introduces the element of political terrorism and is very apt to compromise the Bulgarian Government, from whose territory it operates. There is some evidence that, with the lapse of time and with the appearance of a new generation, the Macedonian revolutionary organisation is losing its hold on the so-called Macedonian minority

909
in Southern Serbia. There is some ground for hoping that the Macedonian problem may, if political passions are definitely discouraged, solve itself through the gradual assimilation of the so-called Macedonian minority into the Yugo-Slav nationality, since neither from the point of view of race, religion, or language is there any fundamental distinction between the Serb and the so-called Macedonian such as should make that assimilation impossible. If events prove that, after all, this Macedonian problem cannot be solved even in that way, then the noble Lord is quite right, of course, in saying that the League of Nations may eventually have to take up the question whether the so-called Macedonian minority in Southern Serbia is or is not a minority for the purposes of the Minority Treaties.
As regards the Ukrainians, I know that I need not remind the noble Lord that the whole question of the position of this minority has been before the Council of the League this year as a result of the so-called pacification of the Polish Ukrainian provinces in 1930. Petitions against the action of the Polish authorites in that matter were considered last year by a Committee of Three, of which the British representative, who, I think, was my noble friend Lord Cecil, was a member. That Committee found that there was a prima facie case against the Polish Government for violation of the Minority Treaties. The report on that subject was presented to the Council on January 30 last, by Mr. Sato of the Japanese delegation, and that report took the view that the Polish authorities had had considerable provocation, that they had no intention of pursuing a systematic anti-Ukrainian policy, and that they would henceforward maintain a conciliatory attitude and endeavour to collaborate with the responsible elements among the Ukrainians for the improvement of conditions in the Ukrainian provinces.
The noble Lord will remember also that when that report was discussed by the Council Lord Cecil, speaking on behalf of the British Government, drew attention of his colleagues to the very regrettable nature of some of the incidents mentioned in it, stated that he shared the regret expressed by Mr. Sato that the Polish GoNernment had not granted compensation to the innocent
910
victims of abuses committed by their officials, and expressed the hope that the Polish Government would proceed energetically with measures of reconciliation and appeasement. He also expressed regret that allegations of ill-treatment of Ukrainian prisoners contained in the petitions were not to be investigated and reported upon, pointing out that as matters stood those who had made them could say that they had neither been refuted nor considered by the body to whom they had been addressed, but the Council as a whole were prepared to accept Mr. Sato's report and the matter was consequently not further pressed by the Council of the League. I hope I have endeavoured fairly accurately to summarise what happened on that occasion.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Absolutely. The only thing I would add is that there was another petition which was not dealt with at that session, but which will come up, I suppose—I do not know what has happened to it since, but it was still alive—which raised, specifically the question of the treatment of prisoners, and it was one of the reasons why it was not necessary to press the matter too far on that occasion that it would come up to be considered later.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I am afraid I have not got information as to the precise position of the petition, but I have no doubt that it is, as my noble friend says, under a discussion by one of those Committees. I am told that there has been no further development in the Polish Ukrainian provinces of any serious character since the Council meeting already mentioned, and there is good reason to hope that all parties concerned are now more fully alive to their responsibility. Should a definite settlement of the question still at issue between the Polish Government and the Ukrainian minority result from the events of the past two years, I venture to think that no members of the League will have more cause than His Majesty's Government to congratulate themselves on their share in helping to bring about this development.
With regard to the case of the Germans in Posen and the corridor, which the noble Lord has mentioned, the position is that until recently these petitions con-

911
listed mainly of complaints by individual members of the minority that they were prejudiced on account of their race in such matters as expropriation or preemption of their property under the law for agrarian reform or the grant or withdrawal of educational facilities, alcohol licences and the like. In most of these cases it has not been possible, on the evidence available, to question the contention of the Polish Government that the action of their authorities has been dictated by purely practical considerations, such as the undue proportion of large properties in a given area, or an excessive number of alcohol licences in a particular town, and did not constitute an infringement of any right given under the Minority Treaties. There are, however, before the Council several petitions dealing with the question of discrimination as a whole, and submitting comparative statistics intended to show a difference in the respective treatment of persons of German and Polish race over a large area. Such statistics require very careful examination, which is now proceeding, and, until the results of that examination have been ascertained, plainly it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to make any statement on the subject.
The truth is that it is very difficult to see what further steps His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom could possibly take beyond those which they have taken to induce the parties to the Minority Treaties to fulfil their obligations. It seems to the Government that the best and the safest method of bringing pressure to bear in this matter is through the machinery provided by the League of Nations. Some suggestions have been made this afternoon as to possible alterations in that machinery. There is the suggestion to set up a Permanent Minorities Commission. That was a proposal which was viewed with a good deal of sympathy by the last Government. I think the noble Lord quoted a speech by the present Prime Minister in which he said something in favour of that policy, but when the late Government persevered with the project it became clear that there would be very considerable opposition from a number of States. Quite plainly it is one which could not be brought into operation except by general agreement, and so far as we have been able to ascertain
912
the same reasons and the same attitude persist to-day. It makes it a little difficult to expect that there is any real prospect of that plan being carried into effect.
Then there was a proposal that the findings of the Committees of Three should be published. That again is one which naturally appeals to British sentiment, because we are always in favour, I hope, of giving the widest possible publicity to anything in the nature of judicial investigation, but the difficulty again is that these are matters with regard to which it is necessary to achieve general agreement before there can be an alteration. And, whatever criticisms may be levelled at the system of Committees of Three, it must be remembered that the system was worked out with very considerable difficulty, and that a number of States are very sensitive with regard to any suggestions of departing from it. I can quite sincerely assure all the three noble Lords who have been good enough to take part in the debate this afternoon that the suggestions which they have made will be very carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will forgive me if I do not give an answer to his legal question as to whether the setting up of a panel of experts would involve a modification of the Minority Treaties. I am not in the least suggesting it would. A matter of that kind, obviously, would want very careful consideration, and it certainly Shall have very careful consideration, especially from the very competent legal advisers at the Foreign Office, whom he knows to be so well able to deal with matters of that kind.
We are grateful for any suggestions which can be made that would help us to bring about a more satisfactory fulfilment of the obligations undertaken by these Minority Treaties. But we are conscious also that the question of enforcing the performance of such obligations is of necessity a very delicate one. The whole question of any kind of enforcement obviously bristles with difficulties, and an unsuccessful attempt to enforce the observance of such Treaties, or an unsuccessful attempt to champion the cause of a minority, might easily do more harm to the cause of the minority itself than the quieter and less spectacular method of using influence with the Governments concerned. With every desire to see these Treaties fully observed in the letter and

913
in the spirit, His Majesty's Government are fain to confess that as things stand at present they do not see that they could themselves do more than they have been trying to do in the past. The suggestions which have been made will be carefully considered, but I cannot give any more direct promise than the one which I have already offered to your Lordships' House. With regard to Papers, I am afraid there really are no Papers to lay. We have no documents which we can produce beyond those we have already produced, so I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion for Papers. Naturally, if there is any information on any specific point which we can give him or give the House, we should be only too glad to give it if he will communicate with us.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, if I may be allowed one more word, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the information he has given us on very many important points. I would venture to hope that, while he sees difficulties in adopting the proposal for a Permanent Commission, he will explore very carefully the modified suggestion that I and the other speakers have developed for a committee of experts which might assist the Council without in any way changing the method of the Minority Treaties in a juridical fashion. May I hope also that, while he has no Papers to lay at the moment, he will consider my suggestion of the value of Consular Reports and of a White Paper upon the procedure in regard to minorities? In conclusion I would ask the noble and learned Viscount not to be too modest as to the influence of His Majesty's Government in the Council of the League in this particular matter. We have a very peculiar position in the Council, upon the question of minorities in particular. We are not only a permanent member of the Council, but we are, notably perhaps, the only great Power disinterested in these matters, and we are able to speak with complete detachment. We are the Power most trusted to have no object in view except the promotion of peace, and I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to regard the task of improvement in this matter as worth their most vigorous attention. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OTTAWA CONFERENCE AND TIMBER.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT had given Notice to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the importance of the question of timber at the Ottawa Conference, and to ask what steps are being taken to see that His Majesty's representatives are adequately informed on technical matters connected with the timber trade; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise the Question which stands in my name because I dare say it will be admitted that forestry in this country is not dealt with by any Minister but by a Department under the Treasury, and it is quite possible that the importance of the subject has not been fully appreciated. The importance of the timber question at the Ottawa Conference can, I think, roughly speaking, be spoken of in this way. In the first place, timber production is one of the important functions of the Government. They are already the owners of some 200,000 acres of timber land, they are planting timber at the rate of between 25,000 and 30,000 acres a year, and in addition, they have in mind the creation of State forests to the extent of 1,500,000 acres, which eventually will undoubtedly have a value which may be reckoned possibly up to £100,000,000.
At the present time I think it would be no exaggeration to say that the value of the timber, including the land and other things in the Crown woods, must amount to several million pounds, possibly ten million pounds. Some years ago the gross revenue of the forestry Department was over £100,000. Probably it is more to-day. Therefore a conference which is to deal with timber supply, with tariffs and matters of that nature, must be of real importance to His Majesty's Government. I hope I make this point quite clear. Already the Government is by far the largest timber owner in Great Britain and probably it will become equal to the whole of all the other owners, municipal and private, of timber in this country.
There is another reason why timber is of such importance and that is from the point of view of employment. It has always been very difficult to get the exact number of people employed, either in the creation of plantations or in the conversion of the trees into timber, but I think

915
I shall not be far wrong in saying that between 35,000 and 36,000 men are so employed at the present day. Given adequate marketing of timber, which of course means increased care for woodlands, that number could probably be doubled or more than doubled. Then there is the employment given by saw milling to be taken into account, and as home timber is comparatively a small proportion the number of men employed in the saw-milling of foreign timber must be very high. Owing to the fact that there is little or no differentiation between tariffs levied on converted and partly converted timber no fewer than 13,500 saw millers were out of employment, according to an answer given in the House of Commons, in the month of February. I believe the number is higher to-day, but I have not checked the figures since. It is, however, undoubtedly the fact that never in recent years has the saw-milling trade of the country been in a worse condition than it is to-day. The question of timber imports and the question of what tariff should be levied and of what preference should be given will be discussed at Ottawa. Therefore from the point of view of employment, of timber ownership by the State, of the returns from State-owned woods, this question is very important.
Its importance will be seen if we take the actual volume of trade. Imports are something between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 per annum. Both in quantity and in value imports of timber have been increasing steadily during the last fifty years. I am aware that at the present time, partly because of the inundation of markets by timber produced in Russia with no regard to economics, prices are lower to-day than they were last year or in 1929. Notwithstanding the introduction of substitutes it is the universal experience that the higher the civilisation the higher is the amount of timber used per head of the population. Certainly Canada regards this question of timber as second only in importance to wheat, and the Colonies—which, of course, are less articulate in the sense that they have not the opportunity of stating their position—are even more interested because timber is their principal production and the principal source to which they can look for increase of trade. While soft wood requirements can only be met in part from the
916
Dominions practically the whole of hardwood requirements can be met, and the hardwood used in this country represents something between £5,000,000 and £7,000,000 per annum.
From another point of view also this will be a matter of importance at the Conference because when you come to the final reckoning it will not merely be a question of sentiment but a question of bargaining. It is a question which will differ from the question of food imports. In the one case you will deal with a matter in which price is of absolutely vital interest whereas in the other case the question of food prices can be met by loss on the part of the consumer or On the part of the already over-burdened farmers in this country. One would imagine when there is such a clear direct Government interest—I say "direct" because the Government in the near future may be a producer of timber of anything between £50,000,000 and £100,000,000 and to-day is interested to the extent of £10,000,000—that the Government would have acted as any ordinary trading body would do and sent somebody with full knowledge of the subject to represent their interests. I can understand in the case of agriculture and the manufacturing industries that they might be asked to send their own representatives, but in this matter the State has a very direct show of its own to look after.
We all know the hundreds of individuals who go out to Geneva and Locarno and other Conferences. Surely when they are sent out in such numbers and treated with such munificence it is not too much to ask that an important industry in which the Government itself has such a big stake should be properly represented at Ottawa. What has been done? In agriculture you had an advisory committee, and though I do not compare the importance of forestry with that of agriculture the State has no great farms like it has great woodlands. All that has been done is that some sort of general invitation common to all industries has been issued to the Timber Trades Federation and I understand that up to yesterday the business advisers had not yet seen the committee of that federation. Time is going on, and this is a most technical question that, in my submission, has been grossly underrated in value. May I make a suggestion? The

917
matter is important from a bargaining point of view and it is important in relation to employment, and my suggestion is that you should here and now appoint an Advisory Committee on exactly the same lines as you have appointed an Agricultural Committee. Probably you have the facts, and those you appoint should have them. You ought to have represented on that Committee your own interests as represented by the Forestry Commission, you should have also the sylvicultural interest, the scientific and research interests and, more than anything else, you should have the trade interests, the saw-millers of this country and the importers from abroad.
From that Advisory Committee I submit that you would get your facts presented with a knowledge that would equal the information of those whom they are going to meet. The casual invitation which has been issued is not at all sufficient. An answer was given in another place to Mr. Ramsay the other day which was most offhand and bore no relation at all to the great stake which the Government has in this matter. High as is the opinion I have of the Timber Trades Federation I am not at all satisfied that they are the group who should necessarily give advice on either the interests of the State or the interest of producers here and abroad. I need not go into the whole question of imports at the present time, but it is common knowledge that our soft wood supplies come in the main, and always must come, from the Baltic States. It is also certain that for a considerable time—and in my opinion for ever—we shall necessarily have to import from Russia several hundred thousand standards. Their terms of sale are attractive to buyers here and the average importer finds it more simple to get delivery from them than to go to a new country. It is obvious that these gentlemen of the timber trade may not necessarily be the best advisers at Ottawa and yet, so far as one can see from the action the Government has taken, they are likely to be our only advisers. In asking His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken I would point out that the steps taken up to date are remarkably small. I submit that there is still time for a Committee on the lines I have suggested to be formed, and if it is formed you could get valuable advice. Surely in
918
the ordinary course of business in view of the interests involved it is worth while sending someone to Ottawa well able to represent our industry. You would not be criticised if you took what would be regarded by the country as a whole as an ordinary trading precaution for safeguarding our interests.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I am very pleased that Lord Lovat has emphasised the point brought forward in his Motion. I happened to be in Ottawa only a short time ago and had the opportunity of discussing with the Prime Minister and other Ministers various questions of trade and in particular the question of timber. One point that was emphasised was that whatever may be arranged at the Ottawa Conference it will take a long time before trade can actually experience any material benefit, and whatever the time, long or short, may be, it will be very much longer unless those who attend the Conference have at their back all the technical information they require for them to deal with all the points that may arise. I can say that so far as Canada is concerned they will welcome wholeheartedly any technical information that may be available to those dealing wit h timber questions.
I happened to be the president of a trade mission and some were good enough to say that from the point of view of immediate employment and benefit of industry, a trade mission such as ours would have more immediate effect than perhaps even a Conference. That may or may not be so, but I know this. We were only there seven days, but before we cast off from the wharf at Montreal there were orders leaving our shores here in response to cables, as a result of our mission. There were nearly ninety merchants and manufacturers in the mission, representing 148 different lines of industry, and not one single man on the ship was disappointed with the business achieved. What was the secret of our success? It was that every single man was a technical expert, who knew his business from A to Z. It shows the importance of those who attend a Conference being supported by all the technical information and knowledge available.
I am sorry to say that the Forestry Department in this country is rather under a cloud over there. It is a small matter,

919
and I only mention it because I think it could be put right. It seems that a little time ago we asked the Canadian Forestry Department to collect large quantities of seed. They went to much trouble and expense to collect it, and then, because we had cut down our own forestry operations in this country for reasons of national economy, we told them that the seed, or a very large proportion of it, was not wanted, and we left them to foot the bill. It was indicated that if anything more was to be done between our Department and theirs, there would require to be some guarantee that there should be no repetition of this. If I may do so, I would suggest that perhaps some steps should be taken to square this matter before the Conference. A little oil now would lubricate business in the future.
There was one other point of interest to trade, and that was the question of the importation of paper and wood pulp. It was pointed out that by reason of the tariff imposed by America it was very difficult indeed for Canada to hold her position in the United States market, and especially against a country like Scandinavia, where wages and transportation charges were lower. It is possible that perhaps we could help Canada by giving a preference to Scandinavia, so as to draw her pulp from the American market. Whatever arrangement is made it will have to be an arrangement for dovetailing the British and Canadian interests, and if we can help Canada, directly or indirectly, we should do so. Whatever arrangement is made we must go into the Conference with all the knowledge and information available.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the two speeches to which we have just listened will have convinced all of us who needed any convincing on this subject, of the tremendous importance of the point which Lord Lovat has raised. What the noble Lord wants, I think, and I hope I shall be able to give him, is some reassurance that the Government are making adequate preparation for dealing with this subject satisfactorily at Ottawa. Perhaps that point can best be dealt with if I put before the noble Lord the exact preparations that are being made. The Government have appointed seven indus-
920
trial advisers to form part of the United Kingdom delegation:—three trade advisers, Sir Gilbert Vyle, Lord Weir and Sir Alan Anderson; two advisers appointed by the Trades Union Congress, Mr. Citrine and Mr. Bromley; Sir Edward Davson, to advise on Colonial trade matters; and Sir Douglas Newton, to advise on matters of particular agricultural importance.
It is quite obvious, if we consider for a moment the numbers of trades and industries which exist in this country and which are bound to come up for discussion at Ottawa, that it is impossible to have one representative for every trade, and I am sure that the noble Lord would be the very first to admit that. On the other hand we have appointed these three special trade advisers and Sir Douglas Newton for dealing with agriculture, and the position is that it is open to all trades and industries to approach these advisers and put the whole of their case before them. The noble Lord complains that until a very late date there has not been consultation with the Timber Trades Federation, or any other body interested in the timber trade of this country. That is the responsibility of the trade itself, and from inquiries I have made—
LORD LOVAT: You cannot expect the trade to look after your interest. You, the State, are directly interested in this matter, because you are the biggest timber producers here.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was not dealing with the particular discussions which may take place between the Forestry Commission and the Government. I was disussing for a moment the private side of the trade, and I was saying that so, far as the inquiries I have made have been answered I gather that in no case have the trade advisers approached any trade. It has been up to the trade or industry to approach the trade advisers, and put their case before them, and the reason why there has not been prior discussion with the Timber Trades Federation or any other body, is that up to a very few days ago they had not made any application. The noble Lord raised another point, which is that he feels the Timber Trades Federation are not likely to be entirely representative of all the interests in the home producing timber trade.
LORD LOVAT: May I again interrupt? That is exactly my point. To-day the importers can buy all the timber they want in the easiest possible way, and moreover he heavily remunerated. Why should they go unless you ask for their assistance?
EARL DE LA WARR: That is exactly the point I was coming to in my speech. If it be said that the producers of this country are not satisfied with the representation of the Timber Trades Federation—and the noble Lord has given us very strong reasons why they should not be so satisfied—then there is no reason why the producers in this country themselves should not also state their case to the trade advisers. It is entirely up to them to make use of the machinery that exists, and what I would put to your Lordships is that this lack of contact—and that there has been a lack of contact must be admitted—is not the fault of the machinery, but is due to the regrettable fact that the machinery which does exist, and which, if used, will turn out to be fully satisfactory, has not been used either by the timber trade or (if we are going to make this distinction) by the home producers of timber. There is nothing that the Government would welcome more than the opportunity of getting hold of the full opinion of all the various interests in the different sections of the timber trade. I hope that they will be put into the position of being able to do so in the near future.
I particularly stress the point that if the Timber Trades Federation are not regarded as satisfactory representation, then it is up to those who feel that they are not being represented by that federation to put up their own representation through the machinery provided by the Government. I think then that I can assure the noble Lord that he and those with him—and I know that there are many who are anxious on this point; the noble Lord is not speaking for himself alone—will find that the interests of the home producers, particularly of timber in this country, will be adequately represented at the Conference at Ottawa. There is one further point—namely, that there is nothing to prevent a trade sending its own representatives to Canada in
922
order that they may be available on the spot for consultation with the industrial advisers, should the need arise. I understand that a number of trades are doing that, and there is nothing to prevent this trade doing so also.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I cannot say I am satisfied with the noble Earl's answer, which does not deal with a great many of the points that I raised. He has not told us in any way how the State forestry industry is going to be represented at Ottawa. Are the Timber Trades Federation going to represent the interests of the Forestry Commission at Ottawa? After all, we are far the biggest people who are interested. I would ask the noble Earl carefully to consider my suggestion that just as the Government have done with agriculture appointing men representing every branch of agriculture—I happen to be one myself, we have met with the greatest harmony, we have had very few meetings, but we knew our subject and quickly got through our work, and I do not think it is breaking any confidence to say that our report is nearly ready—it would be quite easy to appoint a committee, and you could then choose as your representative someone who knows something about forestry to be chairman of that committee. Then you could go forward and say you had really dealt with the subject. There is very grave dissatisfaction among those who have the misfortune to grow forests or to be interested in the State forestry development, but still greater dissatisfaction among those who know something about the Empire and who know by direct evidence that at Ottawa they do not think they are going to have a square deal before they start. I think it would remove a great deal of this anxiety, which undoubtedly exists in the non-self-governing Colonies to-day, if you had quite a small committee appointed, covering those branches that I have mentioned, with Sir Douglas Newton as your representative, who could then say that at all events you would study the matter properly and that your own State industry was going to be represented as well as one particular section.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT had the following Notice on the Paper:
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. How many officials in the International Labour Office draw salaries (including pensions allowances) of £1,500 or over?

2. What percentage do these highly-paid officials represent of the total numbers of the permanent staff?

3. What is the nature of the International Labour Office pensions scheme? To whom does it apply What is its ultimate cost? Was it included in the answer recently given in the House of Lords on the subject of the cost of the International Labour Office to this country?

4. What is the reference to the Committee of Inquiry into the international Labour Office expenditure?

5. What representation on that Committee will be given to Great Britain and the principal contributing nations to the International Labour Office expenditure? And to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I again return to the question of the expenses of the International Labour Office, and I propose to put further questions at a later date. With regard to the first Question, I have put down £1,500 a year and over because that represents British money. With regard to the second Question, I wish to emphasise the word "permanent," as I do not include charwomen and partially employed people like that in the permanent staff. With regard to the pension scheme, I hope the Government will be able to give me full details—not only whom it affects and whether it affects the wives and children, but how many illegitimate children are affected by the scheme. I would also like to know by whom the money is paid—whether it is paid out of International Labour Office funds or out of the League funds; and whether at the time I made my last inquiry on the subject this was included in the figures that were given me for the total expenditure under the International Labour Office.
Since I last asked a Question here I understand that an inquiry is being made into the expenditure of the International
924
Labour Office. I would like the Government to tell me whether this is going to be dealt with by the whole Council, or whether it is going to be a sub-committee that will deal with this matter, and what the reference is. I would like to know what representation we, the unfortunate country which subscribes the largest amount to the International Labour Office, are going to have—whether we are to be represented individually or whether we are going to be represented on the basis of payments made: that is to say, whether the non-contributors are to be represented as well as the contributors, and whether those who contribute most are going to have a larger representation than others? I beg to move for Papers.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, I do not take it that the noble Lord is contesting the immense value of the International Labour Office, but that he is concerned at the expenditure attendant upon it. To deal with his Questions seriatim, the answer to the first one, in a word, is seven. Provision is made in the International Labour Organisation Budget of 1932 for the salaries of these seven officials whose emoluments, together with the pensions contributions paid on their behalf by the League of Nations, would at par rate of exchange amount in each case to £1,500 per annum. These seven are the Director, the Deputy-Director, four chiefs of divisions, and in addition one technical adviser. While those seven officials are the only ones falling within the exact term of the noble Lord's Question, I will be frank and add that there are seventeen officials in the next grade below them. They are chiefs of sections whose salaries rise by annual increments to 33,000 Swiss francs, which at the par rate of exchange is roughly £1,130. That is as regards the first Question.
LORD LOVAT: May I interrupt to say my Question is directed to the seventeen? The noble Lord says that at the present rate of exchange the salary of 33,000 Swiss francs will only be £1,130. My mathematics are entirely in error if that is the case. The noble Lord is quite aware of the present rate of the Swiss franc. If he will work it out—it is a simple arithmetical sum—he can see what the result is.
LORD ROCHESTER: I would point out to the noble Lord that I deal with the par rate of exchange. I admit the present rate of exchange is somewhere about 18, but I am dealing with the par rate of exchange which is 25, or approximately 25, and on that account I emphasize that these seventeen, although not coming within the exact purview of the noble Lord's Question, should be mentioned. At the par rate of exchange their maximum would be £1,130, and even at the present rate of exchange they would still be outside the purview of the Question.
LORD LOVAT: I ask in my Question for the amount to be stated in pounds and therefore at the present rate of exchange. If the noble Lord had not mentioned the seventeen gentlemen I should have done so.
LORD ROCHESTER: That is the reason I mentioned them. I wanted to anticipate the noble Lord. I would emphasize that after all these officials are living in Switzerland, where they pay correspondingly higher rates for everything they consume. Therefore it is only fair, for the purpose of comparison, to take the par rate of exchange, but, even if you take the present rate of exchange, I suggest that the noble Lord's mental arithmetic is at fault, because then they would come just under the maximum. The noble Lord has mentioned in his Question the amount of £1,500. But be that as it may, there are seventeen in the lower grades that would approximate to his Question. I want to be frank. The total number of the permanent staff of the International Labour Office is 411, of which number the seven senior officials I have mentioned represent 1.7 per cent. of the total. If I understand the noble Lord's second Question that is the point he wants elucidating.
To come to the third Question, which is a little more involved, the pensions scheme applicable to officials of the International Labour Office is the scheme approved by the Assembly of the League of Nations at its eleventh session in 1930. It is applicable to all officials of organisations of the League of Nations (including the International Labour Office) appointed after the 1st January, 1931, whose appointment is without fixed time
926
limit, or for a fixed period of not less than seven years. Officials appointed before the 1st January, 1931, who are members of the provident fund may, if they wish, transfer to the pensions scheme. Officials classed as belonging to the first division are required to contribute 6½ per cent. of their pensionable emoluments; other officials contribute 5 per cent. As to the ultimate cost of this pensions scheme, I think the noble Lord, upon reflection, will appreciate that it is almost impossible to estimate that exactly, because it is contingent upon so many uncertain factors, such as the number of staff and their expectation of life, but no doubt it will answer the noble Lord's point if I say that the League of Nations contributes a percentage of the pensionable emoluments of the officials, which is fixed annually by the Assembly. For 1932 the percentage was fixed at 9 per cent.
The scheme provides for a pension on retirement. Officials who have attained the age of sixty, and who have completed twenty-five years service may choose an annuity equal to one-half the average annual pensionable emoluments of the last three years of their service, or a capital sum equal to the present value of the annuity. Officials who do not satisfy such conditions but have completed ten years service, are entitled to pensions based on lower proportions of their emoluments. Provision is also made for invalidity pensions and for pensions to widows and to children of deceased officials. Detailed particulars of the scheme are already in print. I say that apropos of the noble Lord's request for Papers, and, as he is out for economy, I am sure he would not want duplication and have them printed again. He can find them set out in Staff Pensions Regulation, document A.25 (1) 1930 X, and a copy is available in the Library of your Lordships' House. The cost of the pensions scheme to Great Britain for 1932, so far as the International Labour Organisation is concerned, represents approximately £3,400 of the figure of £54,000 to which the noble Lord referred, and which was stated in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Stanhope on the 15th March last as being provided in the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour.
May I say that His Majesty's Government are as anxious as the noble Lord to

927
see that any unnecessary expenditure is curtailed, or rather eliminated if there be such expenditure, but this is preeminently a case for agreement? After all this country is only one of about fifty countries who are members of the League, and they all have equal status as far as the Assembly is concerned; but it would be false economy to curtail expenditure to the point of impairing the efficiency of the League, and the International Labour Office is an integral part of the League. The only economy therefore that can be entertained by His Majesty's Government is that which can be accomplished without loss of efficiency. The history of the finances of the International Labour Office shows that so far from exhibiting a steady tendency to increase, as is sometimes represented, they disclose on the contrary a surprising stability when account is taken of the inevitable growth of the demands made upon the Office as its position and possibilities become more clearly recognised in the world, and the corresponding growth of its work, which has in fact taken place, in meeting those demands. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that the Budget of the International Labour Office is one of the most carefully scrutinised in the world. It is proposed by the Director and then revised by the governing body which includes Government, employers, and workers' representatives. It then has to pass the Supervisory Commission, and finally the Fourth Committee of the Assembly, and the Assembly itself, which votes it.
My noble friend's fourth Question, if he will forgive my saying so, is not very clear in the light of the facts. Presumably he has read the proceedings of the last session of the Council and desires to know the exact instructions which have been issued by the Council with regard to investigation into the expenditure of the International Labour Office. Perhaps it will be convenient if I refresh the noble Lord's memory as to the exact sequence of events. I ought to explain that the Budget of the League of Nations comprises expenditure of the League of Nations organisation proper, of the International Labour Office and of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. Although the International Labour Office is an autonomous body its expenditure has to be provided for each year by the Assembly of the
928
League. The Fourth Committee of that Assembly receives and passes each year the Budget which, as I have just said, includes the expenditure of the International Labour Office. Admittedly there is practically nothing in the nature of external control over the International Labour Office—that I concede—before the estimates reach the Assembly. What happens is that after approval by the International Labour Office the Budget goes to the Supervisory Commission, whose duty it is to examine the figures and to report to the Assembly of the League, but they are not in a position in any way analogous to that of the Treasury in this or any other country.
In the circumstances, therefore, His Majesty's Government at the last session of the Council in May put forward a memorandum drawing attention to the increased expenditure of the League and suggesting that unless the tendency to increase expenditure were checked strong criticism might be aroused in various quarters. They proposed, first, that an examination should be made into the whole organisation of the League—that is including the International Labour Office—with a view to effecting economies, and secondly, a review of the scale of the emoluments of the staff, including the staff of the International Labour Office. They proposed that these questions might be examined by a small committee of outstanding men of affairs outside the political fields in their own countries, with such expert advisers as they might find necessary and a secretary from the League staff. They expressed the opinion that it was essential that economy should be incorporated in the terms of reference to the proposed committee and that policy should not be excluded, though of course any question of real policy which emerged from the committee's labours could only be decided by the Assembly later in the year because by the constitution of the League of Nations the Assembly is the body ultimately responsible for finance.
The discussion of this memorandum occupied several sittings of the Council and it was finally decided that the memorandum of His Majesty's Government, together with the minutes of the various meetings, should be forwarded to the Supervisory Commission who should be requested to prepare a report for the

929
Assembly on the papers sent to it. The Supervisory Committee were left to decide for themselves which of the various points they could usefully and effectively examine. Questions relating to the activities of the League would not fall within their competence, while certain questions relating to the organisation of the Secretariat have been reserved for discussion at the next Assembly of the League, which is in the first week of September next, as the noble Lord knows. Three subjects however remain—namely, a possible reduction of staff, a possible reduction of salaries and a stricter control of expenditure. The Supervisory Commission were asked to examine these matters and to associate with themselves two or three experts in those subjects which the Commission should decide to examine.
The Supervisory Commission have received the papers and have met and have decided that they cannot usefully go into the question of the reduction of staff, but they are examining the questions of the possible reduction of salaries and of a stricter control of expenditure. The Chairman of the Supervisory Committee has invited Sir Malcolm Ramsay, who was until recently Comptroller and Auditor-General in this country, to assist them in their labours. It is not known whether any other experts have been invited from other countries. Sir Malcolm Ramsay is now in Geneva studying the question, and it is understood that the Supervisory Commission will meet at Geneva at the end of the month to continue the discussion and prepare their Report. The report of the debates at the meeting of the Council of the League last month at which our proposals were made are already in print and if they are not in the library of your Lordships' House they very shortly will be there. If only on the plea of economy, therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his demand for Papers. If he decided to do so the Government would not withstand his demand, but it would only mean duplicating information which is already in print. The Government are quite alive to the anxiety of the noble Lord and those associated with him, and they are taking what steps they can to meet the case he has presented. If there is any other information I can give him I shall be only too pleased to do so, but the noble Lord
930
will recognise that I am speaking not for my own Department but for another and that therefore I am in a somewhat delicate position.
LORD LLOYD: May I be allowed to ask the noble Lord for one piece of information? I think I am right in saying that those States which have not paid their subscriptions to the League are just as eligible to vote as those who have paid their subscriptions. In this much-needed scheme of reform is that matter to be dealt with, so that those States who are in arrears with their subscriptions will not be allowed to vote?
LORD ROCHESTER: I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring to the Supervisory Commission, but I might tell your Lordships that the constitution of the Supervisory Commission at present is as follows: Czecho-Slovakia provides the President, India, Norway, France and Venezuela are represented, and Poland and Hungary provide substitute delegates whore necessary. As regards the representative of India, we are fortunate in that he is a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Meston.
LORD LLOYD: I am afraid I did not express myself very clearly. Perhaps I might take a concrete case. China, for instance, is grossly in arrear with her subscription to the League, but has an equal vote with Japan. In this scheme of reform will China's voting power be reduced in conformity with the reduction in her contributions? That seem to be a matter of equity.
LORD ROCHESTER: My reply would be that twelve years membership of the House of Commons has taught me not to answer or attempt to answer hypothetical questions. I cannot anticipate the findings of the Supervisory Commission. I quite appreciate that this point is worthy of consideration, and no doubt it will be considered, but it is not possible for me to anticipate the findings of the Supervisory Commission.
LORD LLOYD: I do not wish the noble Lord to anticipate findings, but I was anxious to be assured that this was one of the things that would be brought up.
LORD ROCHESTER: I should like to be as noncommittal as possible and I

931
therefore say I will intimate to the Minister concerned the anxiety of the noble Lord in this regard.
LORD LLOYD: May I ask one more question Are officials who are the subjects of a country which has not recently paid its subscription eligible to be beneficiaries equally with those of other States under the pension scheme?
LORD ROCHESTER: I think the noble Lord must appreciate that I am really not in a position to give a categorical answer. I should say that the fact that a Government has not paid its contribution or is in arrear of contribution should not ipso facto disqualify members of the staff who are subjects of that Government from benefits that they admittedly are entitled to under contract, but this matter, too, I will refer to the Minister concerned and if I can give the noble Lord any further information at a later date I will do so.
LORD LOVAT: I thank the noble Lord for his answer to the questions that I put down. I am afraid I take exception to one or two of the statements he made, but on the other hand I think we can
932
congratulate him and the Government on the fact that these great rises of expenses, which have gone up I think I am correct in saying from 6,000,000 Swiss francs to 9,000,000 Swiss francs in the last few years, seem to be approaching a limit. I am quite aware that the noble Lord cannot give an answer to the question of the ultimate cost of the pension scheme, but I would point out that this scheme has been so liberal that I think I am right in saying that it out-balances that of any country in Europe. I propose to return to the charge in the near future when I have had an opportunity of considering the noble Lord's answers and, perhaps, after I have heard of actual economies that are effected in the meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.

BURY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
PORT OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCE- DURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, namely:

L. Belhaven and Stenton,

L. Russell of Liverpool:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.