Sitting of 19 July 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; Amendments made.
Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION SUTTON ROAD BRIDGE) BILL,
"to confirm a Scheme made by the Minister of Transport under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation," presented by Mr. Hore-Belisha; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EXCHANGE OFFICIALS (CONDUCT).
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the complaints from all classes of the community that officials at Employment Exchanges are lacking in helpfulness and courtesy to applicants; and whether, in view of the hardships suffered by the unemployed and the necessity for alleviating their conditions, he will instruct his officials to maintain such courtesy and efficiency in the fulfilment of their duties as are displayed by other branches of the Civil Service?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): So far from such complaints being general, I think I am right in saying that the testimony of those who have personal dealings with Employment Exchange officials is that they maintain a high standard of courtesy and efficiency in their dealings with those who have occasion to use the Exchanges. If any complaint is made, it is at once investigated and should it be found to be justified—as I am glad to say is rarely the case—appropriate action is taken.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman a ware that there are large numbers of cases in many parts of the country, including ex-officers, ex-public school boys, and workers of all classes, black-coated and otherwise, and will he take such steps as he may think necessary to ensure that courtesy is given to those who attend Employment Exchanges, and that they receive the same courtesy as is given in all branches of the Civil Service?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am sure that courtesy is already given. I can only say that I think it is a pity that, if the hon. Member knows of instances of that kind, he did not bring them to my notice before asking the question, rather than after.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have brought this matter forward, appreciating the responsibility which devolves upon me in so doing and being satisfied that in giving ventilation to it on the Floor of the House it will do what is necessary?
    Mr. STANLEY: I can only repeat that I think before my hon. Friend made general allegations of this kind against a very loyal and courteous body of civil servants, he should have produced the details of complaints, which might have been investigated.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour the name of the chairman and the names of the other members of the Statutory Committee under Part I of the Unemployment Act; and what salary the chairman, the vice-chairman and the other members of the committee are to receive?
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour the names of the members of the Unemployment Statutory Insurance Com-

    1239
    mittee; the respective salaries; and which of its members are to give full time to the post?
    Mr. STANLEY: The members of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee are:
    Sir William H. Beveridge, K.C.B. (Chairman).
    Mr. A. L. Ayre, O.B.E., J.P.
    Mr. A. D. Besant, B.A., E.T.A. Captain the Right Hon. C. C. Craig, P.C. (Ire.), D.L.
    Mr. Arthur Shaw, J.P.
    Miss Katharine J. Stephenson, C.B.E., J.P.
    Mrs. M. D. Stocks, B.Sc. (Econ.), J.P.
    The chairman will receive a salary of £1,000 per annum, and the other members fees of five guineas for each day spent in attending a meeting, subject to a maximum of £500 in a year. No member will be required to give full time to the work of the committee.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the committee will meet?
    Mr. STANLEY: I cannot say when they will hold their first meeting, but the committee has already been appointed.
    Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to inquiring into the other resources of the members of the committee?

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILM STUDIOS (ALIENS).
    Mr. DORANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the discontent among artistes, technicians, artisans, etc., employed in British film studios, through the introduction of aliens, mainly exiles from Germany; on what grounds his Department recommends the granting of permits to these persons; whether he will state the names of the parties who made application for such services; and, as plenty of British labour is available for the work, will he take immediate steps to cancel these permits in order to avoid trouble between British and alien labour?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have no evidence of such discontent and the suggestion that these permits, which in total are quite few, are mainly issued to Germans is quite incorrect. The film company is re-
    1240
    quired to make application in each case and to show that the introduction of an alien is necessary. If these permits were cancelled, as my hon. Friend suggests, the result might well be not to increase but to reduce the amount of employment available for British workers.
    Mr. DORAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman personally investigated, or caused to be investigated, the real reason for the discontent prevailing in the studio. I have investigated—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me the results of his investigations.

    WIFE'S ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the regulations of his Department, paragraphs 189 and 190, L.O. Code 7, provide that if the wife of an unemployed man advertises for summer lodgers she is automatically disallowed benefit whether in fact she has succeeded in obtaining lodgers or not; and whether, in view of the hardship caused by this rule, be will consider amending the regulations so that where it is proved that no lodgers were kept the wife's allowance will be restored?
    Mr. STANLEY: The effect of these paragraphs is not correctly given in the question. Cases of the kind described are not automatically disallowed, but are referred to the insurance officer for his decision whether they are to be allowed or are to be referred to a court of referees. The ultimate decision depends, not on regulations, but on the provisions of the Acts themselves. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a leading decision of the Umpire bearing on the matter.
    Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the official to whom he refers in one particular town acts upon decision of the Umpire and upon that decision has disallowed benefit in this particular case, although in fact no lodgers have been taken by the woman?
    Mr. STANLEY: I cannot answer without particulars of the individual case, but a claim can only be disallowed by the court of referees.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many single unemployed men in Durham who have hitherto received full transitional allowance are now receiving an addition of 9d.; whether this is the maximum amount for single men; and why the 10 per cent. has not been restored to such men?
    Mr. STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on 9th July. The amounts set out in the basis of need laid down by the Commissioners are not hard and fast, but may be modified to meet the needs of any individual case, provided that the unemployment benefit rates are not exceeded.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as one can learn from personal investigation and also from resolutions received, the practice referred to is going on, and that men below 50 years of age who are receiving the full amount of unemployment pay get 9d. instead of is. 9d., while men above 50 years of age get more generous consideration? Can he take steps to see that, as far as possible, the 10 per cent. is restored to the men, at least to the people who are receiving the maximum amount?
    Mr. STANLEY: As I said in answer to a previous question, the general effect of the new scale is to add rather more than 10 per cent. to the cost of transitional payments.
    Mr. LAWSON: Seeing that the Commissioner in Durham is in a special position compared with other parts of the country, can the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that, as far as possible, those in receipt of the maximum amount will at least receive the benefit of the 10 per cent., which they are not getting at the present time?
    Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down on that point. I cannot answer now with certainty, but I do not think that it is within my power to do what he suggests.
    Mr. PIKE: Is the Minister aware that the same circumstances do not exist at Rotherham, where there is also a Commissioner?
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Are not certain local authorities, in effect, giving the 10 per cent., and would it not be possible to have some uniformity in this matter?
    Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this distinction should be made and why single unemployed men get 16s. instead of 17s.?
    Mr. STANLEY: The Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretion, has drawn up a scale, the general effect of which is to provide for more than the 10 per cent. increase.
    Mr. LAWSON: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the first possible opportunity.
    4. Mr. DENVILLEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the public assistance committee of the corporation of Newcastle-on-Tyne have declared it is illegal to pay 26s. per week transitional benefit under any circumstances; and will he take steps to ensure the same interpretation of the legal position in both the counties of Northumberland and Durham?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am not aware of such a declaration, and I have no grounds for believing that the authorities referred to are unaware of their legal powers and duties in respect of the administration of transitional payments.
    Mr. DENVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on one side of the river 26s. is paid and on the other side 24s., and will he state why the Newcastle Corporation say they are not legally entitled to do the same as is done on the other side of the river?
    Mr. STANLEY: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on 5th July, he will see the legal position set out.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that within a short distance two people in exactly the same circumstances, and living in practically the same locality, are receiving different amounts, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should takes steps, while recognising the legal position, to influence the local authorities to see that both persons are treated alike?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will realise that I have no power in this matter.
    Mr. BU CHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman not the power in these circumstances to call the two local authorities together and get them to see common sense in the matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: It depends on the discretion of the local authorities, who are answerable for their actions to the ratepayers in their own districts.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not possible, in view of the wide dissatisfaction in the area for the Minister or one of his departmental officials to call a conference and get the two authorities to adopt common sense views?
    Sir W. BRASS: Surely the Minister is aware that the money comes from the Treasury and not from local funds?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Minister not aware that the cause of this is the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also by the Minister of Labour, which has led people in the country to believe that 10 per cent. would automatically accrue to them?

    Ex-SERVICE DISABLED MEN.
    Captain Sir IAN FRASERasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the concession to disabled ex-service men that the first £1 of disability pension would be left out of account when assessing their incomes under the means test cannot become operative until the new board is set up under the Unemployment Act, he will remind public assistance authorities of the circular issued by his predecessor in 1931 and of a number of statements subsequently made on behalf of his Department, the effect of which was that such authorities might at their discretion increase payments to disabled men on account of their disability above the normal; and will he invite them to consider taking this action at their discretion so that any hardship may be alleviated forthwith?
    Mr. STANLEY: Public Assistance Authorities were informed in a circular of 24th November, 1932, issued from my Department, that where in any case the nature of the disability is such as to involve extra expenditure and calls for a
    1244
    greater measure of assistance than would otherwise be appropriate, the authority may properly take such special need into consideration in determining the amount of transitional payments to be allowed in any case. I have no reason to suppose that authorities need to be reminded by any further circular of their powers and duties in the matter.
    Sir IAN FRASER: In view of the special circumstances which have arisen owing to the expectation given to these men and the necessary delay which has occurred in bringing it into full activity, will the right hon. Gentleman consider reminding these authorities of their powers?
    Mr. STANLEY: If there is any necessity to remind authorities of their powers probably the object has been achieved by the question of the hon. and gallant Member and the answer.

    CARPET FACTORIES, BELGIUM (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW - MILNEasked the Minister of Labour if he has any information as to what wages are paid and hours worked in the carpet factories of Belgium; and whether any special conditions for employment therein are laid down by the Belgian Government?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I regret that information is not available as to the wages paid in carpet factories in Belgium: so far as I am aware, no information on this subject has been published by the Belgian Government, or by the International Labour Office, in recent years. The hours of labour of workpeople employed in such factories are restricted by Statute to eight a day and 48 a week, subject to the provision that in cases of exceptional and unforeseen pressure of work authorisations to work extended hours, not exceeding two hours a day for a maximum period of three months in a year, may be granted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, after agreement between the employers and workers; the available information indicates, however, that such authorisations are only sparingly granted.
    I have no information as to any special conditions laid down by the Belgian Government in regard to employment in carpet factories, other than those dealing with such subjects as the minimum age for employment, night-work for women and children, weekly rest day, and payment of compulsory family allowances, which are applicable to industry generally.

    BATA FACTORIES, TILBURY.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour how many aliens have been granted permits for employment at the factory of Messrs. Bata at Tilbury; what number of such permits have terminated; and what number are still in operation?
    Mr. STANLEY: Permission has been granted for the employment of 28 aliens at the Bata factories at Tilbury. Four permissions have terminated; the number in operation at present is 24.
    Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these permits were given? Is there a dearth of labour in this country?
    Mr. STANLEY: These are permits granted to special men who are brought over here in order to train labour in this country.
    Captain CAZALET: Is it not the case that a similar number of English people are employed in a factory in Czechoslovakia as a result of this arrangement?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that there are many people in the boot and shoe industry who are unemployed, and why is it necessary to bring in these foreigners?
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand that this firm has a particular process, and it is necessary to bring over skilled men to teach British labour here how to use this process. These permits are only for a limited time.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to excessive hours being worked by juveniles at the factory of Messrs. Bata, of Tilbury; and whether he will take steps to see that the law in this respect is observed and the health of the work-people thereby protected?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have received a report showing that the normal hours at these works are 7.30 to 5.30 with no Saturday employment. Some of the employes have been working longer, but apparently within legal limits. In one or two instances there have been irregularities but these were not serious and the firm have promised to see that they are not allowed to occur again.

  POLICE.

    PENSIONERS.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary whether he will furnish a statement showing the number of ex-police officers in receipt of pensions other than war pensions; the average amount of pension per head; and the number of such pensioners who are in paid employment while in receipt of their pensions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of retired members of police forces in England and Wales in receipt of police pensions on 31st March, 1934, was 35,184, and the average pension was about £150. I have no information as to the number who have obtained employment since they retired.

    DISCIPLINARY CASES.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether the seven members of the Metropolitan police force, including two sergeants, who were suspended from duty in the East End of London have been reinstated; and whether the policemen in question had any of their pay stopped?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commissioner of Police informs me that the sergeant and six constables referred to have all been reinstated. Four of the constables who were found guilty of the offences with which they had been charged were not paid for part of the period of suspension.

    UNIFORM.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that owing to the weight of the cloth of which the uniforms are, made the police suffer in hot weather, he will arrange either to clothe them in drill or thin blue cloth or permit them to dispense with their tunics and wear a white shirt when

    1247
    on duty during the heat wave, whereby they would be cooler and more visible in traffic?
    Sir J. GILM0UR: As regards the Metropolitan Police, I have nothing to add to my previous replies. Elsewhere the matter is within the discretion of the chief constable.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that a policeman's uniform is exactly the same in summer as in winter; that there is a total disregard of climatic conditions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; that is not the case. There are two kinds of uniform.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the cloth which policemen are now wearing as I have done? It is about three times the consistency of the cloth any hon. Member in this House, other than myself, is wearing?
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in the provinces as to what arrangements are made there during the hot weather to help the police in the performance of their heavy duties?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have already explained in my previous answer, in the case of excessive hot or cold weather measures are taken to clothe the police according to the circumstances.
    Mr. KNIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the unfavourable impression created in London by the uncomfortable clothing worn in hot weather by the police?

    BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a document containing a black list of certain anti-Fascists has been compiled by the Blackshirts; that the Blackshirt movement is active among the armed forces of the Crown, and that a list of certain recommended weapons is included in the same document; and what action, if any, he proposes?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information regarding any such document, but I shall be glad to consider any information
    1248
    which is in the possession of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ADAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the "Daily Telegraph" of a speech delivered last Sunday by the Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, and will Mr. Marchbank, in the public interest, be required either to repudiate or to substantiate those allegations?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have not seen it.

    SHOPS ACTS (CLOSING ORDERS, EXMOUTH).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether, in regard to the closing orders adopted by the Exmouth Local Authority, under the Shops Acts, he is satisfied that those orders are being enforced?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The local authority responsible for making and enforcing Orders under the Shops Acts in the Exmouth district is the Devon County Council. I am informed by the council that the Orders are duly enforced in this area, and that during the last two years they have received no complaint, but that they understand that a complaint addressed to the Exmouth Urban District Council is about to be sent on to them. This complaint will be investigated in due course and I will communicate with the hon. Member when I learn the result.

  EDUCATION.

    SECONDARY SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, SALTBURN.
    Lieut.-Commander BOWERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that parents of the girls at the Saltburn High School, Yorkshire, have received notice that certain middle-school forms will stay at home on given dates in order to provide adequate accommodation for examinations; and whether he is satisfied that the secondary education facilities in the vicinity are adequate?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Is not this a clear indication that the secondary education facilities in this area are not sufficient, and is the hon. Member aware that the neighbouring area, with a growing population of over 60,000, is utterly unprovided for in this respect and that local feeling runs rather high?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: These temporary arrangements only occur on two days in the year, and I do not think that they justify additional accommodation. The North Riding of Yorkshire is the responsible authority, and they are satisfied that a new school is not justified at present.
    Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Is the hon. Member aware that the North Riding education authority continually blames the Board of Education for a lack of educational facilities?

    SCHOOL HOLIDAYS.
    Sir F. SANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the numbers of families who take their annual holiday in August on account of the school holidays and the consequent congestion and high cost of accommodation at seaside resorts during that month, he will consider closing all elementary schools during July in order to relieve the position and also with a view to giving to children under 14 years of age the benefit of a holiday during a month with longer hours of daylight?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The fixing of school holidays is a matter which lies within the discretion of the local education authorities. It is already the practice of a number of authorities to adjust the school holidays to local needs.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does not the operation of school holidays by local authorities depend on the insistence of the Department that schools shall have a certain number of openings in the year; and will the hon. Member consider now whether the number of openings required should not be substantially reduced?

  HOUSING.

    FINANCIAL PROVISIONS ACT.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the communications sent from urban district councils calling his
    1250
    attention to the failure of private enterprise to provide an adequate supply of homes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, to be let at rents payable by the working class; and, in view of the widespread desire that the Government should introduce such financial assistance as will enable local authorities to build this type of house, what action he intends to take?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have received and considered certain communications of the kind described by the hon. Member in the question. As regards the remainder of the question I would refer the hon. Member to my observations in the course of the recent Debate upon the Estimates of my Department.
    Mr. MACD0NALD: In any further legislation dealing with this matter, will the Minister of Health bear in mind the fact that many miners are earning less than 5s. per day?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will find these matters considered when the legislation is introduced.

    STATISTICS.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Minister of Health whether he can give the House any further information in regard to the statistics which he proposes to publish, showing the number of houses built and the number of slum dwellings demolished during recent months; and whether he will issue such figures to the Press at regular intervals?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The statistics will be tabulated in a half-yearly return dealing with house production and slum clearance. For details I am afraid I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await -the publication of the return which, as I have already stated, will be issued as soon as possible after the end of September.
    Captain CAZALET: Would my right hon. Friend consider publishing some figures, if not all, every quarter, instead of twice a year, so that the country may know the very substantial progress that is being made in these matters?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In fact, very close consideration has been given to that question, but it has been found that the labour involved by more frequent publi-

    1251
    cation would not be justified, in view of the results. The half-yearly returns will probably give a sufficiently close view of the situation.
    Mr. THORNE: Will that half-yearly return contain figures as to the number of houses that have been built for letting and not for sale?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I must ask hon. Members to await the actual details in the return when it is published. It will deal with house production.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the figures include houses that have been demolished because they are worn out, though not part of a slum clearance scheme?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am not sure to what class of houses my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. MAXTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman not do something with the films in this matter?

    NATIONAL HOUSING COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the Report of the National Housing Committee in which it is stated that the attitude of the Treasury seems to have been governed by the view that the need for subsidies for the housing of the workers was temporary, and that the Treasury has been concerned rather to limit the commitments of the national Exchequer in relation to housing than to consider the best financial methods of carrying through a national housing scheme; and what action does he propose to take to put into operation the recommendations of this committee?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the report referred to. I do not at all accept the statement quoted from that document or that it represents accurately the attitude of His Majesty's Government or of any Department of Government.
    Mr. GROVES: As this report has been circulated not only to Members of Parliament but to the public generally, if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the findings, will he make some representation to them, or may we assume that the view of the Ministry is that the National Housing Committee does not know what it is talking about?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The prospect opened up by the hon. Member's suggestion that there should be an immediate refutation of every document circulated by a private authority is a very formidable one.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in connection with claims for widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions his Departmental notes request that the claim numbers shall be quoted in communications; whether he is aware that embarrassment is caused to aged people, inasmuch as the claim numbers exceed 27 millions; and whether he will give instructions that simpler numbers are used?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second and third parts, the pension number serves three purposes, namely, to denote a particular pensioner, to show the week of the year in which a new order book is issuable, and to show the week and year in which the pensioner will attain the age of 70, when the charge for the pension has to be transferred from the Pensions Account to the Vote for Old Age Pensions. This greatly facilitates the use of machines for recurring operations, and the advantage to the pensioners themselves of the virtually automatic renewal of their pensions far outweighs any slight disadvantage which the use of necessarily long numbers may involve.
    Mr. GROVES: While the reply has nothing at all to do with the question on the Paper, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with special reference to the question, why these forms have been issued? They contain eight figures and are, therefore, a source of embarrassment to aged people. They are written, not typed. If they were typed they would be more easy to decipher. Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that these forms are an embarrassment to old people?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member's supplementary question really satisfies me that the answer was most relevant to the question. I apologise for the length of the reply, but, if the hon. Member will consider it, I think he will find that it meets his point.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    DEAF AND DUMB PERSONS.
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Health how many county or county borough councils have applied for permission to contribute towards the support and maintenance of institutions for deaf and dumb persons; and whether he can state the names of such councils, and, in each case, the amount of the proposed subscription, and the action taken by him in connection with such application?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Thirty county or county borough councils have applied during the past year for my consent to the payment of subscriptions to missions for the deaf and dumb, and I understand that at least nine other councils are paying annual subscriptions to such missions. I will send my hon. Friend a statement giving the names of the councils and the amounts of the subscriptions, and showing what action has been taken on each application. In those cases in which sanction has not yet been given to the proposed subscriptions, I am making further inquiries, as I am not at present satisfied that the Councils in question have given adequate consideration to the needs of the missions in respect of the placement of deaf and dumb persons in employment.
    24. Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that local authorities are making as wide a use of the powers provided under Section 67 (6) of the Poor Law Act, 1930, as is desirable in the public interest; whether he has received adequate response to his Circular No. 1,337, dated 22nd May, 1933; and whether he will consider the desirability of extending the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, to deaf and dumb persons?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. I am, however, taking action with a view to securing closer attention by the local authorities to the suggestions made in the 'Circular mentioned by my hon. Friend, and as at present advised I do not consider that fresh legislation on the lines he suggests is desirable.
    Mr. CAPORN: In those cases in which my right hon. Friend has not received
    1254
    any application, will he communicate with the local authority concerned and again draw their attention to the circular?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In cases in which 1 am not satisfied as to the adequacy of the action there is further communication.

    IMPORTED EGGS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information to show that the United States of America, or any other countries, prohibit the importation of liquid eggs on grounds of health; and whether he will consider prohibiting their importation to this country on these grounds
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Liquid eggs imported into this country and intended for food must be free from preservatives and fit for human consumption, and, subject to those conditions, I am not aware of any reason for prohibiting their importation on grounds of public health.
    Lieut.-Colonel AC LAND - TROYTE,: Will my right hon. Friend further consider this matter and carefully examine it to make sure that these eggs are not injurious to health? Fresh eggs are better.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am sure that fresh eggs are very preferable, but the point of concern at the moment is as to what precautions are taken to ensure that eggs are fit for human consumption.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn, to the manufacture of slab cake, one of the chief ingredients of which is Chinese liquid eggs, and will he see that a decent standard of what is fit for human consumption is required?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the Ministry standard of what is fit for human consumption a very low one, and is not that evidenced by the fact that dyed herring are allowed to take the place of properly smoked kippers?

    WATER SUPPLIES, GLAMORGAN.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the distressed condition of Glamorgan,

    1255
    he is prepared to reconsider the recommended grant to the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board in order to facilitate the provision of water schemes within their rural area?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In assessing the grant for this scheme account has been taken of the local conditions and needs. The grant provisionally allocated is equivalent to one-quarter of the deficiency, and after allowance is made for contributions from the County Council and the Rural District Councils, the burden on the rates of the parishes served will be small.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the sum of £44,000 is rather too heavy for a local authority like this, a local Water Board?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think the hon. Member's question really shows the difficulty of considering all the aspects of such an application in the form of question and answer. That amount has been considered in relation to the needs of the locality.

    HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT (PUBLICATION).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will undertake the printing and publication of the history of the institution and personnel of Parliament which is being prepared under the direction of a Committee consisting of Members of both Houses?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been assured by the Committee in question that the proposed history will not involve a net charge on public funds, and with the object of assisting this undertaking I have agreed on behalf of the Government to the following arrangement, which is accepted by the Committee as satisfactory and likely to produce the results required. Provided that there is secured beforehand from sources other than public funds a minimum sum of £15,000 towards the cost of compiling the history, the Government, while they cannot pledge Parliament or future administrations to a continuing expenditure of public money, will be prepared for their part to authorise the publica-
    1256
    tion, and placing on sale, by the Stationery Office at the public cost of volumes of the history up to a maximum number, varying, proportionately with the amount collected, from 20, if only the minimum sum is secured, up to the total of 40 if £30,000 is secured.
    It is anticipated by the Committee that receipts from sales, which will be credited to the Stationery Office Vote, will cover the cost of publication. It is understood that the Government cannot take any responsibility for raising the above sums but I am sure that there will be a general hope that the Committee may be successful in their efforts.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask my hon. Friends in this House to help? It is a great honour.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MOTOR-CAR IMPORTS.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the value of the motor-cars imported during the first six months of this yeas amounted to £716,937, approximately double the value imported in the same period of 1933 and nearly four times the value imported in the same period of 1932; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the growing threat to the British motor-car, industry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the figures of the importation of motorcars to which my hon. Friend refers, but I would draw his attention to the fact that the importations of parts and accessories of motor-cars have substantially declined since 1932. The duty on motorcars, in common with other Budget duties, will come up for review in the ordinary course before the next Budget, and all relevant considerations, including those to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, will be borne in mind.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS (SPORTING CARTRIDGE CASES).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that sporting cartridge cases are being imported into this country unmarked, subsequently stamped with a fictitious name and address purporting to

    1257
    be that of a British firm, and the sporting ammunition in these cases when exported actually receives the drawback as being British products; what reply has been given to the application under the Merchandise Marks Act for the universal marking of all imported foreign cartridge cases with the country of origin; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this evasion of the Merchandise Marks Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am aware that sporting cartridge cases are being imported unmarked and that, after loading, the cartridges are sold bearing the names of British firms; but my attention has not been called to any case in which the name is fictitious. There is no reason to suppose that a drawback of duty is allowed otherwise than in accordance with the appropriate Treasury Order. For reasons which have been explained in answers to previous questions on this subject the application which has been made for a Marking Order is not one which the Board of Trade are able to refer to the Merchandise Marks Committee.
    Sir B. PETO: May I ask how, in the absence of an Order being made under the Merchandise Marks Act, the public in this country who wish to buy British sporting cartridges can possibly know whether, if they are buying cartridges loaded by any of the firms controlled by the Imperial Chemical Industries Company, those cartridges are in cases which have come from foreign countries?
    Dr. BURGIN: Any member of the British public who desires to buy British cartridges can specify the name of the proprietary article he desires to buy.
    Sir B. PETO: How is the British purchaser to know, even when he takes that precaution, in view of the present state of the trade in these foreign imported cartridge cases, that he will get a cartridge which is British right through, even to the case?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As the sale of a foreign article bearing the name of a British trader is an offence under the existing law, under the last Merchandise Marks Act, will the Board of Trade institute a prosecution, as they have the power to do?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The article imported from abroad, if I understand the matter aright, is the blank cartridge case. That cartridge case is then filled in this country with the ammunition, wads, and so on. A very large percentage of the value of the finished article is thus British, and the name of the manufacturer put on the finished article is not put on the article imported from abroad at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Will hon. Members allow me first to finish my sentence? I am advised that the putting by the manufacturer of the name on a filled cartridge is not the application of the word "British" to an imported foreign article, and in this connection it is quite impossible to treat cartridge cases on any different footing from any other material which goes to make up a finished article. There is a regular procedure under the Merchandise Marks Act, and unless that procedure is followed in connection with cartridge blanks it is not possible for the Board of Trade to intervene?
    Sir B. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the cap on the case is included in the cartridge case?

    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now say when steps will be taken to afford further protection to the agricultural machinery industry, having regard to the fact that the tonnage of the imports in the first half of this year is over 60 per cent. greater than in the same period of last year?
    Dr. BURGIN: I fear that there is nothing I can add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 8th May.

    EXPORT CREDITS (GERMANY).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any of the bills accepted by German nationals for British exports, and guaranteed under the export credits scheme, are in default?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It is not the practice to give information about

    1259
    individual countries or firms, but I can inform by hon. Friend that while, in the ordinary course, a certain number of bills on foreign buyers of British goods are unpaid from time to time, including buyers in Germany, there has not been any abnormal increase in Germany in recent times.

    IMPORTED CLOCKS.
    Sir GIFFORD FOX (for Mr. LENNOX-BOYD)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of clocks imported into this country has increased from 715,955 in the first six months of 1932 to 1,528,769 in the first six months of 1934; and what steps he proposes to take to protect further the British clock-making industry?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the increase in imports of clocks referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the latter part, I would remind my hon. Friend that the duties on most clocks are governed by the trade agreement with Germany concluded in April, 1933.

    DENTAL, SURGICAL AND MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS.
    Sir G. FOX (for Mr. LENNOXBOYD)asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of dental, surgical, medical and veterinary instruments and appliances (except optical) have increased from £163,813 in the first half of 1932 to £215,250 in the first half of 1933, and to £247,022 in the first half of 1934; and what further steps he proposes to take to protect the British industry manufacturing these scientific goods?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. Any question of an increase in the duty on these goods must be dealt with by the ordinary procedure under the Import Duties Act.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that a considerable proportion of these goods are dutiable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, as extended by the Finance Act of 1926, and that accordingly no application can be made
    1260
    to the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir. According to my information, that applies to very few of the goods in question.

    SISAL.
    Sir G. FOX (for Mr. LENNOXBOYD)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the price of sisal imported into this country is round about £15 a ton, and that binder twine made from it is sold to farmers at a cost of £33 per ton; and whether he is satisfied that this high price for the manufactured article is justified?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have no official information on this subject, but I understand that the difference between the prices quoted by my hon. Friend is mainly due to the cost of converting sisal into binder twine.

    FOREIGN LOANS (RESTRICTIONS).
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of relaxing the present restrictions on foreign lending?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad of the opportunity to make a short statement. In the first place, I should like to convey my thanks to the authorities concerned, more particularly those of the London Stock Exchange for the manner in which they have invariably striven to give effect to my wishes. I should like to point out also, if I may, that the actual amount or foreign lending at the present time would in no circumstances be great and that it is easy to form exaggerated views as to the effect of the embargo. As regards the future, I am satisfied that it would not be in the public interest that the existing restrictions should be removed at the present time. But under present conditions I should be ready to consider particular cases especially those falling under the following heads:

    (a) Sterling issues by a country within the sterling bloc where the loan is required to increase the sterling assets of that country and so to minimise fluctuations in the exchanges.

    1261

    (b) Sterling issues on behalf of any borrower where the proceeds are calculated mainly to produce direct benefit to British industry.

    Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting into his next Budget a rather heavy tax upon foreign loans.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot anticipate the next Budget.

    The following are particulars of (a) grants (including
    subsidies) for local and other services as shown in the Estimates presented to Parliament since
    October, 1931; (b) guarantees given or provided for under legislation passed since
    October, 1931; and (c) issues from the Consolidated Fund under legislation passed since
    October, 1931.

    (A) Grants (including subsidies) for local and other services
    Since October,1931.

    —

    Supplementary votes, November, 1931, to March, 1932.

    1932–33.

    1933–34.

    1934–35 (Original estimates and supplementary estimates presented to
    date).*

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Exchequer Contributions to local revenues

    —

    45,146

    45,311

    45,354

    Education (excluding teachers' pensions)

    —

    49,110

    47,788

    49,319

    Education (including Land Settlement grants and loans, Development Fund, Beet Sugar Subsidy
    and Milk).

    —

    49,110

    47,788

    49,319

    Fisheries

    —

    —

    —

    54

    Health services

    —

    162

    149

    152

    Housing

    —

    15,263

    15,691

    16,016

    Rural water supplies

    —

    —

    —

    210

    Police

    —

    11,182

    11,309

    11,721

    Road Fund

    —

    2,750

    —

    —

    Unemployment Grants and Loans (including Development Grants).

    —

    4,150

    5,400

    5,150

    Empire Marketing Fund

    —

    320

    250

    —

    Colonial Development Fund

    —

    700

    400

    500

    Other Foreign and Imperial Grants

    35

    1,176

    3,206

    2,955

    Grants for Scientific and Industrial Research.

    —

    61

    93

    132

    Light Horse Breeding

    —

    12

    —

    5

    Light Horse Breeding

    —

    12

    —

    5

    Mechanical Transport

    —

    8

    3

    1

    Civil Aviation

    —

    385

    402

    432

    Miscellaneous

    —

    545

    560

    682

    35

    135,167

    135,697

    139,882

    * The sums shown for 1934–35 have not yet been voted in
    Committee of Supply.

    GOVERNMENT GRANTS, LOANS, AND GUARANTEES.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give separately the amounts of money voted by this House as subsidies, grants, guarantees, or loans since October, 1931?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): As the answer is necessarily in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any early legislation may be expected for the better regulation of industrial assurance; and whether the Government will consider the setting up of a national scheme under Government control?
    Mr. COOPER: The Report of the Committee on Industrial Assurance is still under consideration and I am not in a position to say when action will be taken on it, or what that action will be.

  AGRICULTURE.

    HORSES (GRASS SICKNESS).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any preventive for grass sickness in horses is known at the present time; and, if not, whether any steps are being taken by his Department to evolve such a preventive?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The causal factor of grass sickness is unknown and no preventive agent can yet be recommended. Research on this subject is being conducted at the Moredun Animal Diseases Research Institute, near Edinburgh, the institute most conveniently situated to the areas in which the condition is most prevalent.

    CATTLE (SLAUGHTERING SYSTEM).
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now come to a decision on the suggested establishment of regional schemes for the slaughtering of animals as recommended in the report of the Reorganisation Commission for fat stock?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As indicated in the statement on the livestock situation, which I made to the House on 11th July last, the long-term plan favoured by the Government envisages a reform of the slaughtering system, but I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not committed to the abolition of private slaughter-houses in rural areas?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am not committed in any way.

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Sir JOSEPH LAMBasked the Minister of Agriculture what action has been, or is proposed to be, taken in regard to countries which, during the 15 weeks ended 30th June, have largely exceeded the quantity of eggs exported by them to this country in the corresponding period last year; and whether he is satisfied that the aggregate quantity of foreign eggs imported between 15th March and 14th September will not exceed that imported last year?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLANDTROYTEasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware of the serious condition of the poultry industry caused largely by the importation of cheap foreign eggs and eggs in shell; and whether he proposes to take any further action to help this industry before the Recess;
    (2) whether he is aware that imports of eggs from Poland were higher during June, 1934, than during June, 1933, and that the imports from several foreign countries were higher during the first six months of 1934 than during the similar period in 1933 in spite of the voluntary restriction agreed to; and whether he proposes to take any further steps to reduce imports of eggs?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Since the arrangement proposed by His Majesty's Government in March last, for a standstill in imports of eggs in shell, applied to the period of six months to 14th September next, no special significance should be attached in this connection to the figures of imports in June or in the first six months of 1934. Imports from some countries in the first. 15 weeks of the arrangement, to 30th June, were greater than in the corresponding period of 1932, but total imports of eggs in shell from all sources in the period in question showed a reduction of about 10 per cent. The action to be taken to regulate imports of eggs after 14th September next is under consideration, but is unlikely to be announced before the Recess.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered Question 38 in regard to poultry industry; and does he realise that this industry consists very largely of small men who cannot afford to go on losing money?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have dealt with the position in the poultry industry, and I have more particularly answered the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question as to whether steps are to be taken before the Recess.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will have power under the Anglo-Danish Treaty to reduce exports of eggs from Denmark?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, certainly.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in many parts of the country, poultry keepers are already selling off some of their stock very cheaply, and that men are being put out of employment?
    Major LEI GHTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop the importation of eggs from Turkey?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Any reduction of imports must not discriminate specifically against any particular country.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will examine the possibility of fitting electric fans in the Chamber in order to produce a cooler atmosphere during the summer months?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The air is already drawn into and through this Chamber by means of electric fans. The installation of electric fans in the Chamber itself would only create draughts without reducing the temperature, which, during the recent hot weather, has never exceeded 71 degrees Fahr. To reduce the temperature further without increasing the humidity of the air to an uncomfortable point would involve provision of new plant at a cost of some £4,000 or £5,000, in addition to running costs of some £500 per annum, and I should be disposed to doubt whether conditions as they exist are such as to warrant expenditure of that order.
    Mr. BERNAYS: As the ventilation in this House has been so unsatisfactory during this summer, will the right hon.
    1266
    Gentleman make fresh inquiries before we have another hot summer?
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Might not one of the results of this proposal be to make Ministerial replies even more inaudible than they are at present.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very slight inconvenience is caused to Members of the Government, as there are usually no more than six of their back benchers in attendance?

    REGENTS PARK.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give an undertaking to the House that no steps will be taken to demolish St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, until this House reassembles after the summer Recess or until it has had an opportunity of registering its views on the proposal?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I have stated in reply to other questions, I have at this moment various proposals under consideration as to possible uses for St. John's Lodge. I do not anticipate being in a position to reach a decision in the matter before the Recess, and, if I ultimately come to the conclusion that there is no alternative to demolition, I will certainly inform the House before any such action is taken.
    Mr. BURNETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the fabric will not come to pieces before these proposals are formulated?

    SCOTLAND (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which education authorities in Scotland have reduced the reduction in the salaries of their teachers to less than 5 per cent. below the 1931 level?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer is necessarily somewhat long, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the hon. Gentleman also intimate to those county authorities, who have failed so far to carry out the decision of Parliament this year, his desire that they should do so?
    Mr. SKELTON: My hon. and gallant Friend's question, as far as I understand, deals with a different point.
    Following is the answer:
    The following 11 authorities have submitted revised schemes of scales of salaries at rates providing for a reduction of less than 5 per cent. below the level of January, 1931: Dundee (for teachers paid at rates less than. £150 per annum), Edinburgh, Argyll, Caithness, Clackmannan, East Lothian, Lanark, Midlothian, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, West Lothian. At present 12 education authorities have still to submit revised schemes to the Department, but my right hon. Friend anticipates that 11 of these authorities will pay all or some of their teachers as from 1st July at rates where the reduction is less than 5 per cent. below the 1931 level.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make about the grave increase of fatal road accidents in the last fortnight?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hare-Belisha): May I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 16th July to the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) of which I am sending him a copy?
    Mr. WHITESIDE: Will the Minister consider making it compulsory that motorists should bear the first £5 of the costs incurred in each and every accident?
    HON. MEMBERS: Why?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should be much happier if my hon. Friend would put his suggestion in writing, together with the arguments with which he supports it.
    Mr. CADOGANasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the continued increase of road accidents, it is his intention to introduce legislation dealing with ribbon development on the main roads at an early date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am devoting attention to this question in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and my hon. Friend will not expect me to make any statement as to legislation.

    PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to introduce marked crossing-places where pedestrians will, unless held up by a policeman, invariably have the prior right; and, if so, what steps will he take to ensure that the public are made aware of the intention of these regulations?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Marked crossing-places for pedestrians have already been introduced experimentally at various junctions which are not controlled by police or light signals. At these crossings the pedestrian has the right of way at all times. The attention of the public has been drawn to this experiment by notices issued to the Press, broadcasts from the British Broadcasting Corporation, and a number of special articles in the Press.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the Minister consider having a policeman at each of these experimental crossing-places to explain to the public what is expected from them?
    Mr. SIMMONDS: In view of the confusion which exists between controlled and uncontrolled crossings and the entirely different obligations on pedestrians and drivers of vehicles which are involved, will the Minister consider having these two types of crossings marked in a conspicuously different manner?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In regard to the first supplementary question, I have too much respect for the intelligence of the public to assume that they are unable to understand a system which prevails in all the principal capitals of the world. With regard to the second suggestion, I think it has already been adopted. Uncontrolled crossings are marked with a large "C."

    DEFENCE PROBLEMS (DOMINIONS).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the early summoning of an Imperial

    1269
    air-defence conference to enable this country and the self-governing Dominions to co-ordinate their several air programmes, with the view to the organisation of a, common Imperial policy of air defence?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The normal methods of consultation with Dominion Governments in all matters of common concern are available in connection with problems of defence, and in addition special facilities are provided for the discussion of such problems through the machinery of the Committee of Imperial Defence. These methods are being fully utilised, and I doubt whether there is need to supplement them in the special manner suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, though he may rest assured that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom always welcome any additional opportunities which may arise for personal discussion with Dominion representatives.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Mr. HEALYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total loss to the industries of this country since December, 1931, occasioned by the dispute with the Irish Free State; and if he can give the figures of exports to the Irish Free State for the years 1922 and 1923 as compared with 1932 and 1933?
    Dr. BURGIN: I regret that the desired information is not available. Particulars of the trade of the United Kingdom with the Irish Free State have only been recorded as from the 1st April, 1923. The aggregate value of merchandise consigned from this country to the Irish Free State during 1932 and 1933 is given in tables XI and XII of the issue for January last of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."
    Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the working people of this country should be made to suffer loss of wages from a dispute with which the majority have no concern?
    54. Mr. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the importance of an Irish settlement to this country, he will consider the advisability of entering into fresh negotiations with the Government of the
    1270
    Irish Free State on the basis of the article for an agreement of 1921, and of ascertaining the views of the people concerned, as provided for in Clause 12?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I have given to previous questions on this subject, and in particular to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on the 5th July last. I have nothing to add to those replies, except to point out that the latter part of Clause 12 of the Articles of Agreement of 1921 was revoked by a subsequent agreement entered into in 1925. Effect was given to the latter agreement by simultaneous legislation in Parliament here and in the Irish Free State Parliament.
    Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the cause of the present dispute with the Irish Free State is the British Government's failure to carry out its own part of the Treaty?
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the President of the Irish Free State has given any indication, by word or act, as to whether he desires these negotiations?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This was all answered on the 5th July.

    POST OFFICE (ACCOUNTS, NORTHERN IRELAND).
    Mr. HEALYasked the Postmaster-General if he can give the cost of the Post Office services in Northern Ireland for the past three financial years, with the revenue received?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    Expenditure.

    Revenue.

    £

    £

    1931–32

    869,230

    891.402

    1932–33

    894,892

    898,516

    1933–34

    917,000

    920,000

    EMPIRE MIGRATION.
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the committee set up by him to examine the problem of migration within the Empire has yet presented its report; whether it will be available for Members' of the House of Commons; and what action he proposes to take with regard to it?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that the committee have completed their report and have discussed it at a series of meetings with the Oversea Settlement Committee. I anticipate that it will be presented to me at an early date; and I hope to arrange for its publication at such time as will make it available for Members of the House when the House reassembles.

    OFFICE OF THE MASTER IN LUNACY (STAFF).
    Mr. ALBERT RUSSELLasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that great delay is taking place in dealing with applications for the appointment of receivers on the estates of persons detained in mental institutions in England when such applications are submitted to the Management and Administration Department, Personal Application Branch, of the Royal Courts of Justice; that in some cases the delay is as long as 10 months and that the reason put forward for the delay is the great pressure of work in the department; and whether he will take steps to secure, by increase of staff or otherwise, that such applications can be dealt with within a reasonable time of their presentation?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas lnskip): My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is aware that there is congestion of business in the office of the Master in Lunacy, in spite of the very large increases in the staff of the department which have been made during recent years. My Noble Friend has set up a committee to consider whether the staff organisation and accommodation of the department are adequate and, if not, what alterations are necessary and desirable.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that the delay is remedied as soon as possible?

    LITHUANIA (MEMEL STATUTE).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether,any note has yet been received from the German Government relative to the Memel statute, and, if so, of what nature; whether he is contemplating a separate reply or a reply jointly with the other signatories to the Memel Convention of 1924; and, in either case, what the tenor of such reply will be?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend received a note from the German Ambassador complaining of various alleged breaches of the Statute on the part of the Lithuanian Government, and, in particular, of the recent dismissal from office of Dr. Schreiber, the President of the Memel Directorate. Before its receipt His Majesty's Government, who are following the situation in Memel with close attention, were already in communication with their co-signatories of the Convention on the subject of Memel. My hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless aware that the only locus standi of the German Government in this matter derives from their membership of the Council of the League of Nations, to which body any complaints should properly be addressed.

    TURKEY (FIRING ON BRITISH NAVAL BOAT).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to give a full statement of the circumstances in which British officers were fired on by Turkish soldiers and a British officer killed?
    Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government are still actively discussing the matter with the Turkish Government, but I cannot make any further statement to-day.

    RIVER POLLUTION (BRISTOL CHANNEL).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Health- whether he has yet received from local authorities in South Wales a resolution calling for the appointment of a joint committee to deal with river pollution; and whether he has decided to take action on the matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The only resolution which I have received is from the Swansea Town Council, advocating a joint committee to deal with pollution in the Bristol Channel, and I am 'advised that I have no power to set up such a committee.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the town council to that effect?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot say, offhand, whether there has been any such communication.

    FISHING INDUSTRY (TRAWLERS).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON (for Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR)asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of trawlers completed for British registry in the years 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930; and the number completed for British registry during the six months ended 31st December, 1933, and the 30th June, 1934?
    Dr. BURGIN: As the answer contains a tabular statement I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    So far as the Department have been able to ascertain, the number of trawlers completed for British registry in the periods indicated are shown below:

    In the year 1927

    10

    In the year 1928

    53

    In the year 1929

    64

    In the year 1930

    69

    In the six months ended 31st December, 1933

    25

    In the six months ended 30th June, 1934

    12

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE (AIR POLICY).

    MR. BALDWIN'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. ATTLEE(by Private Wotice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make in regard to the air policy of the Government?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Ever since the War, successive Governments in this country have actively pursued a policy of international disarmament. In our efforts to further this policy by example as well as precept we have reduced our own arma-
    1274
    ments to a dangerously low level in the hope that others would follow our lead. But the disarmament negotiations have been drawn out longer than anyone anticipated. The Preparatory Commission lasted from 1926 to December, 1930, inclusive. The Disarmament Conference opened on 2nd February, 1932, and has pursued its labours ever since. During these 81 years, misgivings have arisen from time to time in many quarters at the increasing accummulation of deficiencies in our Defence Services, particularly in view of the increased expenditure on armaments in many other countries.
    Most of the leaders of all three parties are familiar with the position in its general outline, not only from knowledge acquired while in office, but also from a three-party conference on Disarmament in 1931, in the privacy of which all the facts of the situation were disclosed in confidence.
    The Government's policy remains one of international disarmament, and we have by no means abandoned hope of reaching some limitation. As mentioned in the Debate on 13th July, we are even now making fresh efforts to break the virtual deadlock that exists at Geneva. Unfortunately, however, particularly in view of past experience, we cannot count on an early result, and in view of our commitments under the Covenant of the League and the Locarno Treaty, the many symptoms of unrest in Europe and elsewhere, and the failure of other governments to follow our example by comparable reductions, we have for some time felt that the time has come when the possibility of keeping our armaments at their present low level must be reconsidered, in the absence of comparable reductions by other Powers. This is a situation which, I believe, leaders of all parties have foreseen must sooner or later be reached.
    In the light of these considerations, the whole question of Imperial defence and the part to be played in it by the three Defence Services has been for some months under review by the Government. It is not necessary to-day to give any complete account of our inquiries or of the detailed conclusions at which we have arrived. The deficiencies which it will be necessary to make good are largely deficiencies in equipment and

    1275
    stores which, as I mentioned in my speech on 21st March, have grown up owing to financial stringency and the discussions on disarmament. In these respects, the results of our inquiries will be reflected in the Estimates for future years, and can be more conveniently discussed when those Estimates are debated.
    So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, however, the position is rather different. Here it is a case of the need for further development, which has time and again been postponed, in addition to the need for making good deficiencies. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot delay any longer measures which will in the course of the next few years bring our air forces to a level more closely approaching that of our nearest neighbours. Moreover, in the case of the Royal Air Force, specific undertakings have been given that an announcement will be made before the end of the present Session.
    Before coming to the programme we have decided to adopt, I would emphasise that many factors which have influenced our decision are still fluctuating and liable to change. This applies equally to the future of disarmament and the whole international situation. Consequently our defensive position will have to be kept constantly under review, and we reserve the right to modify or adjust the programme in the light of new factors that may arise.
    Subject to this caveat we have decided on a programme covering the present and the four ensuing years, under which the Royal Air Force will be increased by 41 new squadrons, including those already announced in the 1934 programme. Of these 41 squadrons, 33 will be allotted to Home Defence, raising the existing 42 squadrons at home to a total of 75 squadrons. The remaining squadrons are for service with the Fleet Air Arm or abroad. The rate at which this programme can be carried out within the five years must depend upon various considerations, including finance, which I cannot specify now. We hope, however, so to space out the work, as not to make an unmanageable addition to the Estimates in any one year.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that announcement
    1276
    involves the introduction of Supplementary Estimates?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would rather deal with that question and—may I say beforehand—with any supplementary question on this statement, when we have the Debate. I hope that it may he possible to arrange a Debate before we rise. I think it is very important that we should. The Government have a case which they desire to put before the House and the country, and no doubt there will be many Members in all parts of the House who will wish to carry a full investigation into these matters. I prefer to reserve my reply to that question until the occasion of the Debate.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to give notice that we intend to raise this matter as soon as an opportunity is afforded.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Prior to the Debate taking place, would the Government present a White Paper to the House showing more precisely the effect of this programme both in regard to the present and future strength of the Air Force, and its financial aspects?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that and see what can be done.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Does not my right hon. Friend see that it will be very difficult to discuss this matter next week unless we have something much more definite than the statement. Which he has made?
    Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: The Members of the Air Committee have asked me to thank the Lord President of the Council—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Sir M. SU ETER: May I ask the acting Prime Minister whether he does not think that five years is rather too long—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for a Debate.
    Mr. MAXTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of the kind of opportunity that will be presented to us for the discussion? Is he thinking in terms of its being raised on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Autumn Recess, or on a Motion on the Paper which will enable Members to vote on the subject?
    Wing-Commander JAMES: In the Debate that is foreshadowed, will facilities be given for discussing air defence in its proper relation to Imperial defence as a whole, and not be solely confined to air defence?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is quite impossible to answer that question at the moment because it must depend on the form of the House under which the Debate takes place, and also on the Ruling of the Chair at the time. With regard to the Debate, it is a matter for discussion now through the usual channels. I cannot myself say what form it will take, but it is quite clear that everyone will desire that a full day's discussion shall be given to it. If there be a desire, on the part of the Opposition for example, that the Debate should take place on a Motion, I have no doubt that that, can be arranged through the usual channels.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Could the Lord President answer the question which ventured to ask, following on the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), as to whether some further information as to the scale and the time-table of this expenditure, and the contingent expense which would attach to it in successive stages, should not be placed before us before we attempt to discuss it?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not quite sure whether at the moment I am prepared to put forward a time-table, but I will see what can be done. The reasons for the action we are taking could not go into a White Paper, but would have to be developed in the speeches. I think that probably it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the beginning of the Debate, and try to make clear the whole position of the Government and what we are aiming at; and then what I may call the more technical points might be raised later. I hope to be in a position to give the House ample material on which to base the Debate.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I gather that my right hon. Friend will see what can be done with regard to laying a White Paper?
    Mr. BALDWIN indicated assent.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask that that should be done as soon as possible, because the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Members who took part
    1278
    in the tripartite discussion are now all included in the Government, and are not on this side?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the business on the days previous to the Summer Adjournment.
Mr. BALDWIN: Monday: Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill, Committee stage; Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1932, Committee.
Tuesday: Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill, Third Reading; Whaling Industry (Regulation) Bill [Lords], Committee and remaining stages; Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1932, Report.
Wednesday and Thursday: 19th and 20th Allotted Supply Days. At 10 o'clock on these days the Committee and Report stages, respectively, of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair.
Friday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading.
Monday, 30th July: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, remaining stages.
The subjects to be discussed in Supply and on the Appropriation Bill will be announced later.
If all the outstanding business has been disposed of, including any Lords Amendments to Bills which have already passed this House, and Motions to approve Import Duties Orders, the Government hope that it will be possible to take the Motion for the Summer Adjournment on Tuesday, 31st July. I may add that the House would meet at 11 a.m. on that day.
The date of re-assembly in the autumn, and the business to be considered during the first week, will be announced later.
The Motion for the Summer Adjournment will contain the usual provisions to empower Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date if such a course appears to be necessary in the public interest.
Mr. TINKER: May I ask when the Supplementary Estimate which has just been issued is going to be taken?
Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the Supplementary Estimates, they share the fate of Supplementary Estimates at this particular season of the year. If any of

1279
them are put down for discussion on a Supply Day, they can be discussed, but, whether they are or are not, they will be included in the Votes put from the Chair on the last two Supply nights.
Mr. TINKER: I think that the question of the Victorian migrants is worthy of the attention of the House.
Sir W. BRASS: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Lords Amendments to the Traffic Bill are likely to be taken?
Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot say that at present.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Lord President what business he proposes to take to-night, in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried?
Mr. BALDWIN: The first five Orders.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the 'Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 45.

Division No. 339.]

AYES

[3.58 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Denville, Alfred

James, Wing Com. A. W. H.

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

Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Doran, Edward

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

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

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Kimball, Lawrence

Atholl, Duchess of

Duggan Hubert John

Knight, Holford

Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.

Edmondson, Major Sir James

Knox, Sir Alfred

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Balnlel, Lord

Elmley, Viscount

Law, Sir Alfred

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Emmett, Charles E. G. C.

Leckie, J. A.

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm, th,C.)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Levy. Thomas

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Liddell, Walter S.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Bernays, Robert

Flelden, Edward Brockiehurst

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Blindell, James

Fleming, Edward Lascelies

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Fox, Sir Gifford

Liewellin, Major John J.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Braithwaite,.J. G. (Hillsborough)

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Broadbent, Colonel John

Ganzonl, Sir John

Loftus, Pierce C.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Sir John Glossop, C. W. H.

Mabane, William

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gluckstein. Louis Halle

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Browne, Captain A. C.

Goff, Sir Park

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Buchan, John

Goldie, Noel B.

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Gower, Sir Robert

Macmillan. Maurice Harold

Burnett. John George

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Macgulsten, Frederick Alexander

Butt, Sir Alfred

Granville, Edgar

Maitland, Adam

Cadogan. Hon. Edward

Graves, Marjorie

MakIns, Brigadier General Ernest

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

Campbell, Sir Edward Tasweil (Brmly)

Grimston, R. V.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Martin, Thomas B.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Milne, Charles

Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

Hales, Harold K.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Hall. Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Morgan, A. Hugh Elsdale

Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Hartland, George A.

Moose'', Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

Clarry, Reginald George

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col..J. T. C.

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Cobb. Sir Cyril

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Morgan, Robert H.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hellgers. Captain F. F. A.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Cook, Thomas A.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Munro, Patrick

Cooper, A. Duff

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Nation, Brigadler-General J. J.H.

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Hornby, Frank

North, Edward T.

Critchiey, Brig.-General A. C.

Horobln, Ian M.

Nunn, William

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Crooke. J. Smedley

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

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Patrick, Colln M.

Crossley, A. C.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Peake, Osbert

Dalkeith. Earl of

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Pearson, William G.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Iveagh, Countess of

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Petherick, M.

Peto, Sir Basll E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Sutcliffe, Harold

Pike, Cecll F.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Potter, John

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Savery, Samuel Servington

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Pybus, Sir John

Selley, Harry R.

Train, John

Radford, E. A.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Tree, Ronald

Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

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

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Turton, Robert Hugh

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Ramsbotham, Herwaid

Slater, John

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

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewlck (Wallsend)

Ray, Sir William

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

Smith, Slr J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)

Weymouth, Viscount

Remer, John R.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Rickards, George William

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Robinson, John Roland

Spens, William Patrick

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Stevenson, James

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Runge, Norah Cecil

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Stones, James

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Storey, Samuel

Young, Flt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Rutherford. John (Edmonton)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Sueter, Rear.Admiral Sir Murray F.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

NOES

Attlee, Clement Richard

Harris, Sir Percy

Maxton, James

Banfiefd, John William

Healy, Cahir

Paling, wllfre

Batey, Joseph

Holdsworth, Herbert

Rea, Walter Russell

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Crippe, Sir Stafford

John, William

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Dagger, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thorne, William James

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

West, F. R.

Dobble, William

Leonard, William

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Williams, Edward, John (Ogmore)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Lunn, William

Wilmot, John

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Wood, sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Malialleu, Edward Lancelot

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.

Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1932.
Resolved,
"That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army M, and Air Grants for the year ended 31st arch, 1933, and the application of surpluses to meet expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year."—[Captain Margesson.]
Ordered,
"That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments, which were presented upon the 7th February last, be referred to the Committee."—[Captain Margesson.]

BILLS REPORTED.
  RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    NORTH LINDSEY WATER BILL [Lords].
      NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
      Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.8 p.m.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House has already had a full opportunity of considering the principles which are embodied in this Measure during the Debate on the Financial Resolution. The Government's long-term policy for the livestock industry is set out in the White Paper, and there we also set out the reasons which have led us to introduce this emergency Measure. As it would be unnecessary and undesirable to review those circumstances again, I would desire to pass as briefly as possible to the actual proposals which were laid before the House. The courses which we examined, of course, were an import cut, a levy without any import regulation, or a levy with import regulation, and we were satisfied, as we state in our White Paper, that the levy with regulated imports afforded the best long-term solution; but as this is not immediately practicable, the interim Measure is necessary to hold the situation, pending this development of the long-term policy. In addition to laying our general proposals before the House, we have had, of course, to Table the Financial Resolution, and now the Bill, all stages of which we hope to get before the House rises.
  In Clause 1, we establish the Cattle Fund, and that Clause provides, subject to Treasury directions, for the administration of the fund jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Home Secretary, who are the three Ministers concerned with agriculture in the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary, of course, being the Minister concerned as regards the Imperial aspect of agriculture in Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) provides for a sum not exceeding £3,000,000 to be made available during the financial year ending 31st March next. That is provided out of the Consolidated Fund, and any advances made to the Cattle Fund have to
  1290
  be repaid from that fund to the Exchequer before the end of the financial year. Sub-section (3) provides for the money being voted by Parliament from time to time, and the House will have seen from the Financial Memorandum that it is not anticipated that the sum required, including all payments and administration expenses, will exceed the £3,000,000 asked for.
  By Clause 2 we are empowered to make payment out of the Cattle Fund. The Clause deals with the administration of the fund and prescribes the objects and the limitations thereof. Sub-section (1) empowers the Ministers to make payments in accordance with any arrangements approved by them. The details of the arrangements are to be laid before Parliament. The producers of cattle are defined in Clause 5, which also defines the cattle in respect of which payments may be made. Those, as I stated on the Financial Resolution, Are steers, heifers or cow-heifers which conform to the prescribed standard, or carcases of such cattle, if they conform with that standard. As to the definition of cow-heifers, the House will see in Clause 5 that they are defined as animals which have calved, but which have not grown more than six permanent incisor teeth, which is to ensure that the older classes of cow beef do not qualify for these payments. Other classes of cow beef and hull beef are not eligible. Both the animals and the carcases, in order to obtain a payment, are required to have been sold in the United Kingdom during a period beginning on a day after the end of August, to be appointed by the Ministers, but what is perhaps not less important from the point of view of the House as a. whole is the fact that payments are not to be made in respect of sales after 31st March, 1935, and there is thus a time limit to the expenditure under the Bill. That fully implements the promise we made that this is a temporary Measure to deal with the present situation, and that this House, and Parliament as a whole, will have full opportunity of considering the matter again at a very early date.
  Sub-section (2) sets out the maximum rates of payment which may be made out of the fund in the case of both live and dead weight, the rate in the former case not to exceed 5s. per cwt., and that has

  1291
  to be specified in an Order made by the Ministers and approved by the Treasury. These Orders have to be laid before the House and can, of course, be prayed against. Sub-section (3) limits the types of animals which can obtain payments under the fund, and excludes 'animals in calf. Sub-section (4) prevents an animal obtaining payment from the fund unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the person granting the certificate that the animal has been in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of at least three months. That is to deal with the question of imported fat cattle. Payment will be made for beef resulting from imported steers, but not from imported fat cattle. Sub-section (5) enables Regulations to be made by the Ministers about the dressing of carcases, and Subsection (6) provides for the laying before both Houses of Parliament of all arrangements and Regulations. Under Subsection (7) Orders under the Clause are to be laid only before the Commons House of Parliament. That is, of course, because they deal with financial matters with which the other place is not concerned.
  Clause 3 requires the marking of cattle imported into the United Kingdom, which is an essential provision because otherwise we should not be able to administer the scheme. Under the Clause, after a marking order has come into operation, it will be possible for anyone to whom an animal is presented for certification to see from the mark whether or not it has been in this country for the period of three months which is necessary. Sub-section (2) provides for penalties to be imposed on anyone who contravenes the Order or, with intent to deceive, alters or defaces any mark placed upon any animal. There is no penalty proposed for the general run of the Bill. We think we shall be able to get full security from the common law of the country. Sub-section (3) provides that a Marking Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  That, really, sums up the administrative machinery necessary to make operative the decision which the Committee took, that this financial provision for the cattle industry should be made, but there is the constructive side to which I should like to make reference
  1292
  Clause 4 empowers the Ministers to appoint a Cattle Committee to advise them in the discharge of their functions and to prepare and submit to them the arrangements referred to in Clause 2 and, if so required by the Ministers, to administer the arrangements because, although it is very desirable that the autonomy of the three agricultural administrations of the country should be preserved, yet it is clearly very advantageous that a thing like this, covering a trade which passes very freely to and fro in the United Kingdom, should be administered by a United Kingdom body if possible and, if we can so arrange it, it will be done by the Cattle Committee acting as agents for the three Ministers concerned. Sub-section (4) requires the expenses incurred under the Clause to be paid out of the Cattle Fund. Clause 5 defines a cow heifer as any female bovine animal which has had a calf but which has not grown more than six permanent incisor teeth. It is necessary for us to consider these matters of definition because we are dealing with growing animals and animals which are subject to more than one use. The dairy trade has beef not merely as a primary but as a by-product, and it is undesirable that old cows should qualify for payment. These are the minimum provisions that are necessary. We have done our utmost to keep down what will be before the House at this late stage of the Session to the absolute minimum necessary to administer the fund that is about to be set up.
  Practical details are being worked out in the closest consultation with representatives of the farmers' organisations, the co-operative societies, the meat traders, auctioneers and market superintendents. These are meeting at short intervals in the Department of Agriculture, and they are giving us unstintedly the help and advice that we have asked for; otherwise, it would certainly not be possible to create the administrative machinery in the short time available, for let us be under no misunderstanding as to the size of the task that we are asking the Departments concerned to undertake. There are many men who will have to work long hours and on whom this House has laid many heavy burdens in the year or two years which have immediately passed. There have been many cases of sickness and breakdown among the civil servants who have been responsible for

  1293
  the administration of the gigantic tasks of reorganisation which have been put through by the will of this House and of the industry in the years through which we have immediately passed. If on any occasion we have given short notice to the House, or our arrangements have not been as complete as we should desire, let us always remember that this work is being done under great strain by a small staff of skilled men who find it almost impossible to recruit at short notice capable assistants to help them in their task, for the tasks have grown up so rapidly that to explain them to others who might be brought in to help would be nearly as onerous as carrying out the work entirely oneself. In fact, as we all know, when you are very busy, the easiest way to do the work is to do it yourself and not ask anyone to come in and help you.
  They will have to set up a machine which will cover a million head of stock in the seven months from September, 1934, to March, 1935. It will have to cover from 30,000 to 40,000 cattle a week coming for- ward to the approved centres, which will be several hundred in number. Steps must be taken by marking to prevent an animal being presented and passed more than once for payment. Anyone can see that the possibilities of evasion are by no means negligible, and payment will have to be checked in a manner which will satisfy the ancient accounting machinery of the country that no payment has been wrongfully made and, as the accounting officer for the Department will be responsible for that, we may take it for granted that both he and I are scrutinising with an anxious eye the watertight quality of the work. Payment will be made on the basis of certificates, which will be issued by authorised officers at approved centres, and a certificate that an animal qualifies for payment will be given by a responsible
  authority. The certifying authority will take the responsibility for accurate recording of weight and, of course, for the marking, and we shall use every endeavour to work through the existing channels and introduce as little disturbance as possible into existing practices. [Interruption.] It is not the fact that the heads of stocks that can be brought in can suddenly be expanded. There are well understood gradations, and it would be impossible to bring forward calves and pass them off.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is there any estimate of the number of individual farmers who will be receiving benefit under this scheme?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I could not give the figure now, but it is, in fact, more important to determine the head of cattle, because the certificates will be given on each individual head of stock and, from the administrative point of view, the head of stock passing the authorised standard is the important figure and not the number of persons to whom these payments actually have to be made. I think the number covers a very large percentage of the farmers of the country, because beef is interwoven into the fabric of agriculture so closely that there 'is scarcely anyone on the land who is not at some time or other concerned with the price of store or of fat beasts.
  Hon. Members opposite ask the House to reject the Bill on the ground that payment is being made contrary to the principle that reorganisation in the national interest is an essential preliminary condition. The case of the livestock industry has been examined by more than one committee and commission, and they have all, while desiring a certain amount of reorganisation, warned us of two things: First, that unless we restore a remunerative price level reorganisation and marketing facilities alone will not suffice to meet the situation; and, second, that reorganisation will inevitably take a. long time. It is more important to have an industry to organise than to have the organisation without the industry, and the danger before us was that this situation would lead to a widespread crash in the beef-raising industry, and certainly a crash,which mere reorganisation as such would not fully avert. I have not always found that hon. Members who are opposed to the general lines of this policy are any more willing to accept the principle of assistance even when reorganisation has preceded it, because in the case of the milk industry we had long Debates although a great amount of reorganisation had been carried out. En fact, many of them objected to the reorganisation also. We are placed in rather a dilemma if they say, "No advance without reorganisation ".
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Amendment.
  Mr. ELLIOT: It says:
  "which authorises the payment of a subsidy to private interests in the cattle industry, contrary to the principle that reorganisation in the national interest is an essential preliminary condition."
  I should judge from that that, if reorganisation in the national interest took place, they would have no objection to the payment of a subsidy to private interests. On the other hand, no one will deny that the reorganisation of the milk industry was done in the national interest or that it was done rigorously and meticulously upon the lines which the hon. and learned Gentleman commended to the House in the Act of 1931. Clearly, everything done under that Act must be in the national interest. The Minister, in commending it to the House, specifically said that one of its objects was to promote the organisation of the industry and to have a Milk Board, as indeed was done immediately thereafter. Therefore, clearly, if it be done, if there is reorganisation, the payment of a subsidy to private interests is not, at any rate, ruled out by the terms of the Amendment, although with great legal skill the hon. and learned Gentleman has so drawn it that he may stand on either foot and fight the battle on the grounds that the reorganisation, even if carried out, is not such as he would wish to have carried out and that, although it has been done in the national interest, yet we have not been successful in securing that the national interest has been properly observed.
  While these small discussions go on, it is possible that a great national interest is entirely lost sight of because of all the national interests that can come before us at this moment, the national interest transcending all is simply that we do not allow agriculture to sink while we are discussing measures that may be of benefit to it. We are all agreed that we do not wish agriculture to go under, but that we wish it to be helped. Therefore, let us concentrate upon the simple question: "Will these proposals be of assistance and, if they are not, what further proposals would hon. Members desire to lay before the House?" They may say that they are not called upon to prescribe, but in agriculture we have done our utmost, not without success, to secure a certain continuity of policy and to secure a certain national tradition. We have not merely
  1296
  built upon the foundations of the Act of 1931. In one important case we actually appointed a Member of the party opposite to be chairman of a very important commission under it. We appointed him not without strong comment and great disappointment on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that this was a party matter?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, that is exactly my point. It was not a party matter. It was a purely personal matter. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I could have made other appointments which would have caused much greater satisfaction and pleasure to strong party men on this side of the House.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman selected the person whom he thought best for the post?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I selected the person I thought best for the post with the object of maintaining the tradition of continuity which we had begun to build up and which I thought it was the desire of all parties to preserve. When we on this side of the House have taken the somewhat unusual course of appointing the right hon. Gentleman, who certainly would never hold himself out to be a supporter of parties on this side of the House, to go into the organisation arising out of our agricultural policy, I think that it is a little ungracious of the hon. and learned Gentleman to comment adversely upon such a decision, when, as I am entitled to say, it was done with the object, as all of us admit, of bringing to bear opinions not merely from an agricultural source but from the best informed sources we could get on the very difficult problems which are before us in our agricultural organisation. I was stressing this fact, because the hon. and learned Gentleman made such a point of reorganisation. Reorganisation to him seems to be the essential preliminary to any action. The commissions which have examined the question of reorganisation have stated that it is absolutely necessary, if the proper organisation of the livestock industry is to be carried out, that time should be given. The commission under Lord Bingley made proposals for establishing an efficient system of marketing livestock, and proposals for

  1297
  raising the quality level of home-produced livestock and meat. They put forward proposals for reorganisation which are receiving most careful study from the industry. They specially laid it down that these proposals were to be gradual in their introduction, and the procedure of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, shows that it must be gradual. That procedure involves a period of from six to nine months before any proposal can come into effect, and during that time it would be a little harsh to say that no steps whatever should be taken for the defence of the industry.
  This House, in the Act of 1933, specifically recognised the principle that if a reorganisation scheme were under consideration it was reasonable that an interim shelter should be given to the industry, so that hasty decisions should not have to be made. The slaughtering reform referred to in the last Debate was estimated by the committee of the Economic Advisory Council to cover a period of anything up to 10 years. We cannot wait 10 years while the industry hangs upon the possible saving of even some pounds a head—and nobody can put it any higher even if some slaughtering organisation were to be put through in full accord with the propositions of the committee of the Economic Advisory Council. We have stated in the White Paper that it would be an essential function of the commission to co-operate with any producers' marketing board which might be constituted, and with any interests concerned with a reform of the marketing and the slaughtering systems with a view to greater economy and efficiency, which the Government regard as indispensable to the permanent prosperity of the livestock industry. I do not think that anything could be more emphatic than that.
  But that clearly belongs to the sphere of the long-term policy. We have to consider to-day what, if anything, should be done before the House rises at the end of this month to prevent the disaster which is overtaking, and has already touched, the livestock industry of this country. For that purpose, we frankly ask the House to take emergency action, and we are confident that the House will not refuse us its consent in this matter. To say that we should postpone all action until reorganisation has taken place, is to say that when a house is burning we
  1298
  should summon an architect rather than ring for the fire brigade. The danger before us is not denied by anyone. The steps we are taking are admittedly emergency steps, and we confidently commend them to the House in the belief that the one thing which the country and the House would not wish is to see us sit down and appoint another commission while Rome burns.
  4.37 p.m.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which authorises the payment of a subsidy to private interests in the cattle industry, contrary to the principle that reorganisation in the national interest is an essential preliminary condition."
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to introduce, as a justification for the Government's policy, the appointment of a particular individual who happens not to share the political views which he himself holds. I am confident that if ever that individual had thought that such a use would have been made of his appointment he would never have consented to serve in that office.
  Mr. ELLIOT: This is really an important point. I am most anxious that no injustice should he done in this matter. Let me say, without any hesitation, that I am not using the appointment of any person in any way as a justification of the policy which I am commending to the House or have commended to the House. I am saying that we have done our utmost to preserve a continuity of policy, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is taking a course of action which on further consideration he will deplore if he pursues the matter further.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not intend to pursue the matter further. I have stated my views upon it, and I shall leave it there. There is one thing which, it appears from the opening words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, is not concerned with the Bill at all, but which is a matter the House ought to take into consideration, and that is whether the practice of debating financial Resolutions is any longer necessary as regards matters of this sort. We are in

  1299
  fact starting upon a Debate to-day which is very largely a repetition of the Debate which took place on Monday, but which, under the present procedure of the House of Commons, is necessary. Those of us who desire to expedite and improve the procedure of the House of Commons feel that that is at least one duplication that might in many cases, though not necessarily in all, be got rid of. Naturally in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat any justification for the general policy he is putting forward as regards the meat side of agriculture, nor, indeed, has he explained to us exactly how this scheme is to work. It is not in the Bill. There has not been time to put it there, and I have been unable to follow exactly how he contemplates the scheme working.
  Before I come to deal with the form of the Bill, there is one other matter I wish to mention. We should like to pay tribute also to the staff of the right hon. Gentleman who must have worked most heroically during the last few months. We should certainly be extremely gratified if the right hon. Gentleman could engage sufficient extra people to enable his staff to be relieved of that excessive work, which, we believe, really is wasteful. We know of the case of a permanent and distinguished member who was ill for a considerable time as a result of the overwork to which he had been subjected. I do not think that it is a satisfactory system to carry on any service with a few chosen people who work desperately hard until they either die or retire from their work. If the right hon. Gentleman brings forward Estimates to provide for more staff in order to do more work we shall not object oh that score in the least.
  When the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replied to the Debate on 16th July it really did not seem, as far as one could see from reading his speech, to offer any justification at all for the procedure which is being adopted in this case. His remarks substantially come to this, "This is a subsidy, and a subsidy pure and simple. The industry is in a parlous condition; therefore, a subsidy is justified." That is a very simple argument, but it is a very dangerous one. When one reads it in the terms in which he put it, it proves to be a very amazing pro-
  1300
  position concerning the new policy of the Government. It was as follows:
  "I cannot see a more useful application of national finances than to support at a time of crisis an industry which is not far off being on a sound basis, but which needs a little extra to tide it over the crisis. I can imagine no more useful way of spending money. It is surely far more useful than to let the industry crash and for the people to come on the dole, which is the theory of hon. Members opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1934; col. 895, Vol. 292.]
  I asked him whether that theory applied to all industries in the country, and that question, very obviously, he did not answer. What he was in effect saying was that if anyone comes along and says, whether it is owing to their own carelessness or means of conducting a business, or to the economic circumstances of the time, or whatever it may be, "If you can only give us a few million pounds we can get along much better," the proper and right thing is for the Government to take a few millions and hand them out without any conditions or regulations. That, I suggest, is a new departure even for this Government. Surely, one is entitled to ask, if an industry comes forward and says that it is in a parlous condition, why it is in a parlous condition. The cattle industry cannot say that it is Socialism which has put it into a parlous condition. That is one thing they are unable to put forward as an argument. They can say that the economic circumstances of the time and the economic system under which they have been forced to run for the last 200 years, no doubt, has had a great deal to do with contributing towards it, and also, as is. and has been, very generally recognised. the way in which the industry itself is run.
  We have heard of legislation about scrub bulls, questions about ungraded meat and wasteful selling, the middlemen taking an undue proportion of the money which ought to go into the pocket of the farmer, and of too much profit by the butchers, who are the retailers. All these points have been raised. The chaotic conditions at the present time and the complete disorganisation of this very large industry are generally admitted to be a very large contributing factor to the parlous condition in which it finds itself. I am aware that the Government themselves are to some extent responsible in view of the policies which they have

  1301
  found it necessary to adopt. The industrialists made them enter into Ottawa, and the financiers made them enter into the Argentine Agreement, and, naturally, having done that, they find themselves in some difficulty as regards the organisation of the meat business in this country.
  When one comes to see what is suggested in regard to this industry—the exact difficulties do not matter—which is admittedly suffering from all kinds of dis-organisation, there is absolutely nothing constructive of any sort, kind or description laid down in this Bill. Once I thought that even the Government had adopted the slogan that before you get State assistance you must put your house
  in order. We have heard again and again from the Treasury Bench during this Parliament, in regard to the steel industry, the mining industry and various other industries of one sort and another, that, if they desire to get State assistance, whether by tariffs, subsidies, levies or whatever it may be, they must as a first condition start putting their house
  in order. The House will remember that that was the position taken up by the Government under the Agricultural Marketing Act itself. It will remember the content of Clause 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1933, which made it possible for the Board of Trade to impose import restrictions. The Government then inserted—and I remember that there were several amendments to make the words stronger—a provision that it must appear to the board that there had been or were being taken such steps as were practicable and necessary for the efficient reorganisation by means of agricultural marketing schemes or schemes in respect of those branches of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom for which any such Order was made.
  That was under the recent Act of 1933 when the House made it absolutely a condition precedent of the putting on by the Board of Trade of any regulation of imports—a far less direct method of assisting industry than the giving of a subsidy—and it is inconsistent with the policy that is being advocated by the Government which now comes forward with a Bill which has no word or mention of anything at all regarding the reorganisation of the industry. This is quite apart from any objection to a subsidy as a subsidy and looking upon the subsidy as one of the possible means of assisting
  1302
  an industry or a part of agriculture which is in distress. There has never been any explanation with regard to this subsidy why the Government are departing from the principle which they themselves laid down with emphasis in the first Section of the Marketing Act of 1933.
  We say, they stand convicted on their own past record and their own past arguments which have been put forward to support this very principle. The Minister himself supported that principle when he made his Second Reading Speech on the Agricultural Marketing Bill. I forget whether he said it explicitly, but implicitly he put it forward as a, proposition that what was done under the first Clause of that Bill, and certainly the President of the Board of Trade on more than one occasion made the point in regard to other industries and emphasised this same principle. Yet now we find in this Bill a gift or subsidy whichever you like to call it, of £3,000,000 without any condition of any sort, kind or description, and no conditions as far as we can see in regard to the long-term policy. Taking this as a part of the short-term policy the question as regards a long-term policy is how you are going to assist the industry by levy, restrictions of imports or what not, but nothing is said as to how you are going to reorganise the industry or the absolute necessity in some period of time of a marketing board or a slaughtering board and a nationalisation of slaughtering as was suggested by the Economic Committee of the Advisory Board.
  There might be some excuse if Ministers said: "This is an urgent matter and for nine months, or whatever it is, we must have the subsidy, but during that time I can assure the House that the industry will be reorganised. I shall compel it to reorganise because we are giving the assistance, with the necessity of reorganisation as a condition." There might be some justification from the point of view of the present Government if that were said, but there is no such suggestion before us either in the White Paper, in the Minister's speech or in the Bill. There is a further, much greater and more fundamental objection which we have to this Bill. We object altogether to the system of unchecked subsidies to private enterprise. If the condition of the industry has become such that the

  1303
  State has to step in to carry the financial burden and loss of the industry—and that is what a subsidy means, that the State has to carry the loss of the cattle industry to the extent of £3,000,000 in six months—if the industry has reached this condition, it is time it was taken out of the hands of private enterprise and organised as a State service. If people think that a bad thing, let them not have a subsidy, but let them go on under private enterprise. It seems to us to be illogical to have it bath ways, and say: "We must preserve private enterprise, and at the same time call on the State to pay the loss." We think you must come down on the one side or the other. Private enterprise and carry your own loss: or State enterprise and the State carries the loss.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think the loss would be less under the second system?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I certainly think it would be less. I do not think you could have a greater degree of disorganisation and chaos in the industry as a whole than at present. If you coordinated the whole of your slaughtering, it is perfectly obvious that you would bring about a large measure of saving. Everybody who has inquired into the matter has said so, and I am prepared to take the risk of the State being able to get a better degree of organisation than private enterprise. If I am to be called upon to pay a portion of the loss of private enterprise, I would rather take the risk. If I am to pay the piper, I would like to call the tune. At present the State pays the piper, and private enterprise is calling the tune. It is certain in our view that with a subsidy of this kind a great deal of it will not go to the people for whom it is intended. Presumably it is actually intended for the producer, the man who tends the cattle and does the operations necessary to get the meat on to the market. He is the man whom we have to encourage, and we do not believe one penny of this £3,000,000 will get to that man at all. Some part of it no doubt will get to the farmers, of whom some will be working farmers, who will benefit very materially from the money they get from this Bill, but a great deal of it very likely will go to dealers and middlemen.
  1304
  There are no provisions that we can see to protect the farmer from the dealer and the middleman being the men who get, not necessarily directly but by the price arrangement, the substantial benefit of this subsidy, and a further considerable sum we believe will go to the landlord, in that the farmer will pay rent where he would not be able to pay but for the subsidy. Many landlords who would not be able to get their rent at all will now get it. That may be a desirable thing for people who believe in the present system, but there is no reason why the Government should pay the money. If this money is to be paid, it should be secured to the person who is doing the job for which we wish it to be provided. We can see no possible safeguard.
  There is another very serious objection indeed. There are a great many producers of cattle who do not need this money at all at the present time. HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] A good many are in this House. I do not know whether any are actually here at the present moment, but I am perfectly certain there are a good many Members of this House who have enough money to live on without getting a dole in respect of their cattle for the next six months. Let us take an ordinary case. This subsidy works out according to the Minister at about £3 per head of cattle. A man in a small way selling 10 cattle between September and March next will get £30 or roughly a pound a week. I venture to suggest that there are thousands of people who will get a pound a week or something like that figure from the taxpayer for the period from September to March next who can live perfectly well without it. They have no need for the 21, and, after all, it is a free gift. It is not being used in any sense to control the operation of producing or of distribution, hut simply a free gift to people who would otherwise make less. It will, of course, assist those who could not carry on unless the money were paid, and if we are to maintain the present system it may be necessary to enable the cattle trade to survive, but it can only be justified if it is the only way. We know there are very wealthy people running home farms who sell cattle at Christmas time, say 30 or 40. They are going to get, £90 or £100 as a donation from the taxpayer. How can that be

  1305
  justified when you see all sorts of things that are urgently needed and cannot be done?
  The standard of allowances for children is admittedly too low to support them in decent health. How can you justify doling out these sums of money to people who do not need it? That from our point of view is a very serious objection, and I am quite confident that many of these people will feel when they get these donations extremely awkward about the proceeding. They will feel they would rather not take this money from the taxpayers when there are half starving people quite close who cannot get money from the taxpayer. Cattle-owners in this House for instance will no doubt desire to vote against this sort of assistance to the cattle-owning industry. It is not the proper way of attempting to assist the industry. It is a question here, not of assisting industry at all, but of assisting the individual producers of cattle. We object fundamentally to a system which is aimed at giving State money for the assistance of individual private producers.
  Whether this be an isolated effort or part of a long-term policy, it does not in that respect very much matter. If it be merely part of a long-term policy and that policy be the raising of a levy, it will be even worse than the straight provision of this money from the taxpayers' pocket. If it be paid by the taxpayer it will come from the whole of the population. If, however, a levy be used to repay this £3,000,000 at some future time, a levy which is to be raised on the cheaper forms of imported meat, then clearly it will be provided by the people who eat the cheaper forms of imported meat, and those are not the wealthy people in England. They are the great mass of the people and not those who are fortunate enough to buy the more expensive British meat. In that event, therefore, it will be true to say that the poor man's meat will have to pay for the rich man's table. The truth is that, unless this industry be reorganised, there is no possible excuse for the State stepping in and giving a straight subsidy such as is proposed.
  The practice of providing subsidies which has now been started by the National Government in order to get themselves out of their past difficulties has become extremely dangerous. The Minister of Agriculture cuts off imports
  1306
  and shipping gets into a difficulty. "Well," the Government say, "give shipping a subsidy, and that will help it along." The President of the Board of Trade makes an agreement with the Argentine and allows unlimited meat imports. That creates a difficulty for the agriculturist, and the Government say, Give him a subsidy." We shall go on with this system of contradictory policies, Ministers never making up their minds which lot of people they really want to help, and then turning round to those whom they have not helped, saying, "Never mind, you shall have a subsidy." That seems to us singularly like the rake's progress. One of my hon. Friends said of the Minister of Agriculture last week that he ought to be called the Minister of Scarcity. There should be one qualification to that. He can at least produce abundant coffin nails for capitalism, and as far as he does that he is no doubt assisting in the eventual solution of these problems.
  As I understand the Bill, this £3,000,000 as it were, only a vote on account. That is the money which may be taken under Clause 1 out of the Consolidated Fund. In addition to that, there can be paid into the Cattle Fund moneys provided by Parliament; that is to say, we may be asked in future to vote additional sums over and above the £3,000,000 if it should become necessary. In fact, there is no limitation of amount in this Bill at all. The only limitation will be the number of cattle and the amount per head, which in fact is paid under the order which can be made under Clause 2. In the case of the Wheat Subsidy there was a limit in order that we should not get an excessive production to qualify for an unlimited subsidy. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that not even a farmer can make a calf look like a three-year-old heifer, but there is the possibility that this scheme may divert a number of animals into the market from other sources. It may mean a diminution of the milk supply and of heifers going into milk, and an increase of heifers going into meat. As fas as I can see, the fact that there is no limitation of any sort upon the amount of subsidy that is to be granted does not enable us to take any steps as regards that limitation if it be desirable.
  There is also, as I understand the Bill, no limitation as regards rises in price.

  1307
  If the price of meat rises there will not be any automatic diminution of the subsidy, which can, in fact, be continued whatever the price of meat. Whether it is to come from the State or not is immaterial, but clearly some protection of that sort ought to have been inserted in the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the necessity which the Minister mentioned for marking and doing something with these animals. As it is drawn, it is a most astounding Clause. We shall within the next few months get some of these steers and heifers going round with blue ribbons on them for having qualified the most times for the subsidy. There will be a regular trade in trotting them round from producer to producer, because apparently, according to the Bill, every time a producer sells an animal which is not for slaughter, however short may have been the time since he bought it, it can, if it be home-grown, qualify for the subsidy. If a farmer sells some cattle to-day, he draws the subsidy. The next farmer who sells them is also entitled to the subsidy. If they are resold next day, they again qualify for the subsidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As the Bill stands, that is so. There is no limitation of any sort or kind. I am glad that the Minister is going to make some regulations about marking, but it will be extraordinarily difficult. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) knows how a horse can be painted any colour to make it appear to be something different from what it really is—
  Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Anybody who knows horses knows that it is impossible to do that. You can fake horses in other ways, but not in colour.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I am glad the Noble Lord knows how it can be done, anyway. All I hope is that the Minister will take the Noble Lord into consultation on this matter of faking animals in order that he will see that it is avoided, for it is a very real danger and there should have been some provision in the Bill to avoid it. The rest of the Bill is mere machinery. We realise that in a hurried Bill of this kind you cannot put in all the provisions, and that it is obvious the Minister will have to deal with these matters by regulations. We suggest that it is unfortunate, in view of the fact that none of these regulations can possibly
  1308
  come before the House before the scheme has been in operation at least six weeks, that rather more detail was not put into the Bill. We take the view that the whole Bill should have been conditioned upon something being done. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the word "constructive" when he came to Clause 4. He said, "Now we come to the constructive part of the scheme." This part of the scheme is to set up a Cattle Committee to carry through the subsidy arrangements. That is not constructive. There is no constructive part in this scheme, and we object very strongly to this method of unregulated, unqualified dole for an industry against all the canons which the Government have constantly put forward and which are enshrined in the Marketing Act of 1933. Anyway, we object to the subsidising of private enterprise and private individuals.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on his vigorous denunciation of this Bill. I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do not entirely agree with all that he has just stated. I do not think that the only alternative is Socialism. I think that there are other alternatives. With that exception, I agree with almost every word that fell from the lips of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am in perfect accord with his statement that where there is a grant of public money there ought to be public control, but it is possible to have public control without the State taking over the whole cattle industry. It would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some more information with regard to the position of the Cattle Committee and the extent of it. In that respect I think he might meet the criticism that where there is public money we should have a more strict system of control I agree with the criticism of the hon. And learned Gentleman in that respect. We are being asked to vote £3,000,000 of public money to meet what the right hon. Gentleman has described as the parlous condition of the cattle industry. He said that it was necessary to have this money because Rome was burning and so forth, but he gave us very little information. I ap-

  1309
  proach this question entirely with the idea of being impartially minded, and I have every sympathy with the agricultural industry, which is our most important industry, but I think the right hon. Gentleman gave the House little or no information. He said he had gone over the ground in moving the Financial Resolution, but we are entitled on the Second Reading of a very important Bill to expect that he would make some addition to what he said on that occasion and give us some facts and figures to prove to the House and the country that this departure is necessary.
  It Is a very important departure involving, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, not only a Vote of £3,000,000, but the other policy which is to come later, by a levy, or possibly a duty; and we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state at considerable length and in detail why the fat stock industry is in this parlous condition. He should give us chapter and verse to prove that it is in such a condition. I do not profess to be an authority, but I move about the country a good deal, and while I have no doubt that agriculture is suffering from the fall in prices, I do not see evidence of this parlous condition and of imminent bankruptcy. Many other industries are suffering to-day and will continue to suffer. Are they also to come and ask for a grant of money? If they do come, and possibly they may, the Minister responsible for moving a measure of assistance for them ought to give us in definite and specific terms to prove its necessity. The right hon. Gentleman failed signally in the few trumpery sentences at the end of his speech. He is not treating the House with proper respect when, in asking the House for this sum of money, he does not bring his case more clearly before it.
  Mr. PETHERICK: The Minister gave full details on the Financial Resolution. I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House at the time.
  Mr. MASON: I referred to that fact. I was present and heard every word on that occasion. I have said that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that he had dealt with the matter on the Financial Resolution and that he did not wish to go over the ground again. It is necessary to go over the ground again.
  1310
  There may be many hon. Members who were not present on that occasion, and as this is the Second Reading of a very important Bill we are entitled to ask for a full explanation. On this occasion we have had little or no information to justify the Second Reading of the Bill. That is not the way to treat hon. Members of this House. There is no justification for treating the House with such disrespect. The right hon. Gentleman has asked us to give a Second Reading to a Bill which not only asks for £3,000,000 but embodies a very grave departure of policy in some respects, which is fraught with immense possibilities for the future of agriculture and many other industries. I object to this slipshod method of asking, in the first place, for a Money Resolution, then bringing forward a White Paper, then bringing forward a Bill and really not giving us the information to which we are entitled. Every hon. Member knows, or ought to know, that in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill we are not merely voting for £3,000,000 but we are subscribing to it in order to give the Government time so that six or seven months hence they can bring in another Measure which will involve a levy or a duty. That is to treat the House with a lack of that proper respect which is due to it and to every Member of it.
  In the Debate on the Financial Resolution the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the amount was limited to £3,000,000. The White Paper says:
  "It is estimated that the total sum which Parliament will be asked to provide under the proposed legislation in respect of payments to producers and in respect of the administrative expenses of the Cattle Committee and of the appropriate Ministers will not exceed three million pounds."
  It is clear, therefore, that it is merely an Estimate. We do not really know what the Expenditure will be. This haphazard policy of subsidies goes on and on. It is like trying to stop up one leak of water in an ineffective way and the water continues to come out. This is an evidence of the failure of the policy of the National Government. They found chaos, confusion and possibly bankruptcy facing the shipowners, and they come forward with a subsidy for shipping. Then, as a result of the pressure brought to bear on him by agricultural and other Members the right hon. Gentleman feels that he must do something to save the cattle

  1311
  industry. If and when he brings in legislation to restrict imports he will interfere with the shipping industry again, and I hope that his colleague will have something to say to him, pointing out that if he goes on restricting imports, say, from the Argentine, it will also involve large investments of British capital in that country. If we do not allow Argentina to send in beef, how are they to pay the interest on our investments there? This is an illustration of how the policy of subsidy in one direction interferes with our trade in other directions.
  We had an illustration of the same policy the other day when the Government came to the House with a haphazard Measure in regard to German payments. The holders of German bonds saw the possibility that they were not going to get interest upon their bonds. The only way that they can get their interest is by Germany being in a position to trade and to transfer the necessary amount. Germany was willing to pay, but she could not transfer. Therefore, the Government came to the House with a very foolishly conceived Measure and held a bludgeon over the head of Germany, threatening that if she did not pay we should cut off her trade, by introducing machinery to make it difficult for her to trade. Could there be anything more absurd? It is only by Germany continuing to trade and facilities being given for her trade that she will be able to pay the interest on her bonds.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. Member deny that the policy was extremely successful?
  Mr. MASON: The right hon. Gentleman says that the policy was extremely successful. What was the reason why it was extremely successful? Because this House so impressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he agreed to an Amendment limiting the Bill to two years.
  Mr. ELLIOT: The success has been achieved in a great deal less than two years.
  Mr. MASON: This House carried an Amendment of that kind, at a time when Germany was retaliating by threatening to bring in another Bill, and we had the spectacle of two civilised nations bringing in Bills to stop each other's trade. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentle-
  1312
  man's intelligence. Does he imagine that the average Britisher or the average German does not understand that if Measures are brought in cutting off trade that the Germans will be unable to pay their interest? I see Mr. Deputy-Speaker looking at me, and I will ask his pardon and the forgiveness of the House in that I have been drawn into this kind of discussion, but I suggest, with all respect, that it is relevant, because it shows the utter inability of the Government to understand elementary economics. They have displayed crass ignorance. I say that with the greatest respect.
  I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Members opposite are anxious and sympathetic. They see dreadful chaos and confusion, but the Government are so ignorant in regard to economics, and they show it in their speeches. I have listened to their speeches, and although I am only a student of finance such knowledge as I have been enabled to master in regard to elementary economics has made me feel amazed at the ignorance which the Government have displayed. I was delighted the other day at an answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to that arch-protectionist the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft) who complained of the increase in imports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was clever enough to take advantage of an admission by the hon. and gallant Member that despite the increased imports unemployment had been showing very considerable reductions until recently. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an admirable answer. We have always said that when there was an increase in imports unemployment went down. We have always pointed out that when imports have been at their highest unemployment has been at its lowest in this country.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): On the Second Heading of the Bill the hon. Member had better keep somewhat closer to the subject.
  Mr. MASON: I am sorry. I was trying to show that the Government do not seem to understand these matters. Hon. Members may say to me: "If you object to this policy, what are your alternatives? Have you any suggestions to make" I have no right to stand here and attack the Government without offering some possible alternative, but it is

  1313
  not our particular responsibility to do that. Our duty is, more or less, to criticise and oppose. I have criticised, and on occasion I have supported the Government when I have thought that they were right. On this occasion I say that, first and foremost, we are entitled to have a definite statement with regard to the condition of the cattle industry. We are entitled to have its parlous condition explained to us. We are entitled to statistics to show that the industry is really in such a parlous condition. If the industry is in a bankrupt condition, which I do not admit, for it has not been proved, then there may be some ground for a direct subsidy. When people are in a semi-bankrupt condition you have to do something for them there and then. The Bill does not refer to the other policy which will follow in six or seven months, and in that sense it is dishonest.
  It has not been proved so far that the cattle industry is in a parlous condition and that it is necessary for us to do something at once to save it. I agree that it is an important branch of the agricultural industry and I should be prepared to support it if it was in a state of semi-bankruptcy, because it is most important that we should do something for the improvement of the agricultural industry. If I were in the right hon. Gentleman's place I should first of all give the facts and figures to show that the industry is in a bad state and then ask for a direct subsidy. We are being asked to agree to this duty because the industry is in a semi-bankrupt condition, and afterwards we are to give the Minister the right to prohibit. I hope hon. Members will think what that means. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to buy our food, but there are vast masses of the people who have to consider every penny of their expenditure. The demand for meat has fallen not altogether because there has been a depression but because there has been a change of taste in the habits of the people and also because the working classes are not able to buy. If they had the power there is no doubt that they would buy beef. Under this Bill you are proposing to tax the poorest people on the product which they buy so as to benefit those who are better off and who do not require any assistance. I, for one, shall have great pleasure in voting against the Second Reading.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. OAR-EWING: I crave the indulgence which the House always so kindly grants on occasions when hon. Members have first the opportunity of addressing the House. If I had waited for many weeks I could not have chosen a better opportunity on which to make my voice heard, first, because in supporting this Measure I am apparently supporting a measure which will be of more benefit to the land of my birth than to the land of my adoption and, secondly, that in supporting the Measure I am also supporting one of my fellow countrymen. It enables me to thank him sincerely for the work he has done, and is doing, to restore prosperity to the greatest branch of the agricultural industry. There is no need in my opinion to stress the condition of the industry which has brought about the necessity for the Bill. No industry which shows a decline in the index figure of the value of its products of some 30 points over a period of three years, and no industry which at the same time shows a decline in the quantity of the sales of its products of nearly 10 per cent. in two years, can ever claim to be in a sound condition. I need not, therefore, stress the condition of the industry. I want however to deal with some of the reasons which have brought about that condition.
  It is rather alarming to find that this industry has been subjected to one of the most serious bombardments, as regards imports from other countries, to which any industry has ever been subjected. It has also been a bombardment of very rapid growth. As late as 1910 the imports of chilled meat into this country from South America amounted to about 9,000 tons, but the imports of the same product had risen in 1933 to 400,000 tons. It is indeed surprising that the industry exists at all, and it is a remarkable tribute to the amazing qualities of British beef and also to the ability of those employed in the industry. But apart from this increase, this class of import was never foreseen, and could not have been foreseen, during the last century when this country was being persuaded to maintain a system of free imports. Neither can the ordinary arguments which are so often used, that the cost of transporting agricultural products from other countries, would act as a natural protection be any longer valid.

  1315
  The increased figures of these imports speak for themselves. The cost, owing to the efficiency of the industry which carries these products, is so low, it is only a decimal point above ½d. per lb. to carry meat from the Argentine to this country, that it has never been able to act as any protection to the agricultural industry.
  I do not pretend that we are suffering solely from excess of imports of beef. We are suffering from the change in taste and habits to which reference has been made, and also, I frankly admit it, from a lack of purchasing power, and, if I may so describe it, from a diversion of purchasing power by the means of taxation. If it be true, as has been stated, that it is the poorer sections of the community who purchase imported beef and that it is the so-called well-to-do sections who buy the home product, surely the lower demand for the home product can to a certain extent be accounted for by the lower purchasing power of the so-called well-to-do. Naturally, the question of a restoration of purchasing power is of prime importance if we are to increase the actual purchase of the home product, but, equally, I claim that the restoration of the purchasing power of this large section of the agricultural community is of equal importance with the restoration of any, other form of purchasing power; and as the methods adopted by the Government have proved, and are proving, successful in the gradual restoration of the purchasing power of the people in other directions, so I believe they will, by this Measure, be successful in restoring the purchasing power of this great section of the agricultural industry.
  There is a grave obligation laid upon any industry which is in receipt of aid from the State, and that obligation is that the industry should be carried on in an efficient manner. I cannot enter into the argument as to whether reorganisation of the industry should precede or follow any State assistance, but I would say this, that when it is decided that an edifice of some value should be repaired or restored, or brought up to date, it is frequently essential, before any other work is done,
  1316
  that underpinning should be undertaken, and I look on this financial assistance as a very necessary underpinning in order that the whole structure should not collapse about our ears before or whilst the other work was being carried out. We are all agreed on this, that a reorganisation of production, marketing and distribution, throughout the industry must be tackled at once right up to the kitchen door of the consumer, even up to the point of considering the setting up of chilling establishments to act as a buffer between temporary over-production and an already glutted market.
  I welcome these proposals from another angle. I believe that they contain help for another branch of the agricultural industry—namely, the producers of milk. It is impossible to prove statistically the numbers of those who left the beef industry owing to the difficulties of the market and went temporarily into the milk branch of agriculture in order to get the necessary money to meet their weekly wage bill. If we can induce some of those who went into the milk branch of agriculture to come back into beef we shall do a great deal to solve the problem of the surplus production of liquid milk, and thereby raise the prices which the producer can obtain without in any way raising prices to the consumer, indeed, with a great chance of being able to reduce prices to the consumer. There is also the consideration that some of those who went temporarily into the milk industry are working in buildings which are not really suitable for production purposes, and I urge that it is advisable to encourage these people to leave the rather overcrowded milk side of the industry and come back to the production of beef. I think there is a possibility of their being encouraged to do so by this Measure. The fact remains that the consumer has been subsidised by the producer for a number of years; the producer can no longer bear the burden in the beef industry and any financial assistance which is offered by this Measure can be construed as being some slight repayment for the deficiency which exists between the economic price and the uneconomic price at which home-produced beef has been sold to the consumer for a number of years.
  Let me touch on one further point; it is a question of great difficulty in the

  1317
  beef branch of agriculture but it also applies to other branches. It is the problem as to how we are going to keep the best type of agricultural worker on the land. This is not entirely a wage problem. There are hundreds and thousands of highly skilled men, well versed in all the many and different duties which agriculture calls upon people to perform. These men are discouraging their sons from remaining in agriculture because they have seen the industry decline during the last few years and they fear for the future, and in this way they are deliberately cutting away from agriculture a very valuable and hereditary knowledge which the industry can ill afford to lose. It is a psychological problem; it has a parallel in the case of seamen in fact. The type of labourer to which I am referring can be aptly termed the seamen of the land. It is not a problem which applies so much to manufacturing industries as nature enters so little into the processes of manufacture. It may be necessary to encourage mechanised farming and the factory farm in about 30 per cent. of the agricultural area of this country, but for the remaining 70 per cent., owing to the geological structure of this country, it will always be upon the individual, who by a close personal study of the mediums with which he has to deal, the soil- and the beasts, by his individual effort and knowledge, even hereditary knowledge, that our agriculture will stand or fall. We cannot afford to omit any step which will encourage the best type of worker to remain in agriculture. It is true that we can train young men quickly to deal with the mechanical problems of agriculture, but can we so train them to deal with the natural problems which vary from farm to farm, from field to field, and even from cattle to cattle?
  I welcome this Measure because within it I see some germ of hope that encouragement will be given to that type of worker to go into an industry which has a very great future indeed. I believe that as a result of this Bill many peripatetic liabilities will turn into stable assets. I regret the necessity of a subsidy, but I believe that if a case could ever be made out for a subsidy it has here been made out. Personally I make no extravagant claim for agriculture, because I believe that no greater dis-service than that can be done to agriculture. I believe that if we are
  1318
  really to help the agriculture of this country we have to develop a study of the world, and particularly of the Imperial agricultural problem and the commercial problem, and within that big picture a study of the problems of our own basic and manufacturing industries and our own agriculture, not singly but all together. I do not suppose that anyone here would suggest that the manufacturing districts have a monopoly of trouble and of distress. I feel sure that this Bill will be welcome as in some measure bringing happiness to many of the homes of those who are involved in this very great industry of agriculture.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. AMERY: I think that my hon. Friend who has just spoken had no reason for apologising in rising to address the House, either because of the speech he has delivered or because of the circumstance that he has risen so soon after his election. We all know that but for his self-sacrificing action at the time of the last election we might have had the advantage of his contributions to our Debates during the last two years. In any case I congratulate him most warmly on an extraordinarily interesting, thoughtful and well-reasoned speech, in the course of which he touched upon all the vital aspects that affect this great and complex problem of agriculture. There was one aspect on which he laid special stress, and that was the need for efficiency in agriculture to justify the special "underpinning" assistance that is being given to it. He rightly drew attention to the great efficiency of our most formidable competitor, the Argentine meat industry, and of the shipping industry connected with it. That, I gather, is part of the long-term policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I have no doubt that as soon as he has disposed of this immediate and urgent step he will concentrate all his qualities of enthusiasm and energy upon getting a. policy of efficiency in the meat industry carried out in this country.
  In the meantime, so far from being concerned with the theoretical problem of economics upon which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) laid such stress from the point of view of a Free Trader, or with the equally theoretical considerations brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol

  1319
  (Sir S. Cripps), I think the House as a whole will be grateful to the Minister for having dealt promptly, though none too soon, with the very urgent crisis in the meat industry. More than that, I think most of us welcome the particular method which he has chosen for giving it assistance—the method of flat subsidy, interfering in no way with freedom of trade or with competition in efficiency between individual producers. That method has been proved a great success in dealing with wheat. Some of us have for the last year or more been urging that it was applicable equally to the beef industry. We have done so in the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which has worked out a very full and interesting scheme, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) has also been giving us the benefit of his experience in working out a similar scheme for some months past.
  This scheme, I believe, will succeed. The problem which has to be faced, however, is how the money for the subsidy is to be found. It is for the moment being found at the expense of the general taxpayer; whether that expense is ultimately to be refunded or not we do not know. Under the Wheat Act it was found at the immediate cost of the consumer, but my right hon. Friend contemplates—provision is made for that eventuality under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1—that he will eventually find the necessary funds by means of a levy on foreign imports, accompanied by a smaller preferential levy on imports from the Dominions. I suggest that, in the peculiar circumstances of British agriculture, that is probably the most useful way of helping those of our products in respect of which this country cannot produce the whole of its requirements, and where a purely tariff system or a purely quantitative restriction might unduly send up prices.
  After all, this system of an earmarked duty or levy whose proceeds are given as a subsidy has this double advantage: in so far as the levy affords a measure of protection it diminishes the need for the subsidy; in so far as it fails to protect and the foreign produce comes in it increases the amount of subsidy available for distribution to your own producers; and under present world conditions the greater part of that subsidy would be
  1320
  found by the foreign producer. You get, in other words, an extraordinarily flexible system, giving you ease of regulation and control, with the possibility of studying most effectively both the needs of the producer and the needs of the consumer, which ought never to be left out of account. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend may be successful in putting such a scheme into operation. After all, if we had a free hand the obvious thing to do would be to impose a duty on foreign meat and to give the proceeds of that duty to our home producers, allowing Empire meat to come in free. If, on the other hand, experience proved that the entry of Empire meat competed too severely with our own producers, we could, perfectly consistently with the general policy of Empire preference, impose a smaller levy upon Empire production.
  We had a free hand to do that at the Ottawa Conference. There was nothing at the Ottawa Conference which prevented our agreeing with the Dominions upon a levy on foreign produce with provisional free entry from the Dominions, but also—with the concurrence and the acceptance of the Dominions—if that were not enough, then, consistently with the maintenance of effective preference, a levy might also be imposed on Dominion produce. That policy of duties was urged upon the British delegates by every Dominion. It was also urged upon them by every unofficial representative of British agriculture at Ottawa. Unfortunately our delegates were still obsessed with the purely political complex against duties. There was a moment at the end of the Conference when for anyone even to suggest the possibility of duties to a British delegate created an atmosphere of almost hysterical indignation. Now two and a half years later, the Government are being forced to do that which some of us vainly urged upon them at the time of Ottawa.
  At the time of Ottawa our hands were free. Since then our hands have been tied by the disastrous agreement which the President of the Board of Trade entered into with the Government of the Argentine. That agreement forbids either protection to our own farmer, or preference to the Dominions, by way of duty or levy. It also forbids any protection to our farmers by way or restriction, except on terms which pre

  1321
  clude any preference to the Dominions, outside of the very limited restrictions already fixed at Ottawa and of a 10 per cent. reduction of the Argentine figure for 1932. The question now is, how is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to get out of this sorry mess? I gather that he hopes to be able to secure the agreement of the Argentine Government and of the Dominions upon some form of preferential levy. I wonder why the Argentine should agree. They have found us pretty weak in dealing with them so far. At this moment the Argentine is breaking the terms of the Wheat Agreement to which we were a party, and we are doing nothing to pre vent the Argentine landing cargo after cargo of wheat on our shores.
  It seems to me that they are in a very strong position. Suppose, however, they did agree, under pressure from us, to accept a levy, but stipulated that the same levy should be imposed on the Dominions. Is there the slightest chance of the Dominions agreeing Could we, indeed, have the face to violate the whole spirit of Ottawa to such an extent as to demand from the Dominions a levy on the same basis as the levy imposed on the Argentine? If not, what are we thrown back on? We are thrown back on restriction under the terms of the Argentine Treaty, which means restriction upon the Dominions without any preference to them. That is again a direct violation of the whole spirit of the Ottawa Agreement. What then becomes of all the talk of developing Empire resources? What becomes of the whole idea of developing the Empire in order to find homes for our own settlers? If we do that we are obviously going directly against all that we have declared to be our policy, all that some of us have worked for all our lives.
  In the world as it is to-day our whole hope lies in the development of Empire trade. I am a strong protectionist, so far as this country is concerned, for all its industries, agriculture included. But no one can believe that this little island can live by itself alone. We must have a large external trade, and I know of no other part of the world except the British Empire where we can make sure of such a trade. Whatever else we do, do not let us break the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement and wreck the policy that has been entered upon so hopefully and, in
  1322
  which alone lies any prospect of success for this country. I hope the Argentine will agree. I would add, however, that agreement on their part will riot be much help to us if it involves a binding down of this country for a further period of years to the Argentine. At the end of 1936 we want to be free, free to develop a policy of Empire.
  We must get the best terms we can consistent with the principles of Ottawa. If we cannot succeed, the only thing that remains for us, and the House must face the fact, is to go on paying, over the whole of the next two years, the money which, so far, this House has sanctioned only for the next six months. That is an awkward situation to face. It is a heavy price to pay for having at the Board of Trade a Minister who was capable of making such an agreement; a heavy price to pay for a Cabinet so busy with the pressure of its routine work as not to have realised what that Treaty obviously involved, the difficulties it was clearly bound to create.
  I have the highest respect for the individual abilities of my right hon. Friends who compose the present Cabinet, but the collective incompetence of the present Cabinet system as a system fills me with ever-increasing alarm. I doubt whether anything short of a complete reconstruction of our system in favour of a policy Cabinet, with its members free from departmental responsibilities and able to co-ordinate all the aspects of policy—the same reconstruction as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) adopted in the crisis of the War—is going to get us out of our difficulty. I hope I may be pardoned for speaking frankly, but nothing could have been more incompetent from start to finish than the handling of this meat business over the last 24 months. It was the inevitable result of the fact that there has never been a single, coherent, Government economic policy in which the various aspects of that policy, Imperial, domestic and foreign, have been co-ordinated. In this matter each Department has been pursuing its own policy and has followed its own ideas. With a Cabinet, inevitably pre-occupied with the overwhelming mass of work which confronts it from week to week, first one Minister and then another Minister has got his way. The result is that the public interest has suffered.

  1323
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are Ministers?"] If I might venture once again to quote Latin in the House, I would say, "Quidguid delirant reges plectuntur Achivi." In other words, "When Walter disagrees with Walter, the taxpayer has to foot the bill."
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I do not claim any special knowledge of the agricultural industry, but the bill for this new subsidy will have to be met, first, by the general taxpayers, who in the main are the working people and, secondly, when the scheme develops it will be met entirely by the working people, because they have been singled out, as a class, to be the subject of special taxation upon an article of food which they alone consume. I think it is well when dealing with this, which is probably the last of the long series of subsidies to private enterprise which the House will be asked to vote before the Adjournment, that we should take a look to see where we are getting. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) so clearly showed, this practice of granting subsidies out of taxation to private enterprise is completely altering the basis which is the sole justification for the continuation of private enterprise at all. It has always been argued by those who think Socialism is wrong that private enterprise provides a more efficient service and provides a service in which the State does not have to bear the losses due to inefficiency, due to changing conditions due to the march of progress and the change of taste; and that the profits which private enterprise derived were proper compensations for its initiative and for the losses which it must inevitably suffer in changing conditions. But now those principles have been laid aside, and we have a new form of political economy which lays it down that so long as an industry can be carried on at a profit the profit shall be enjoyed by those whose capital is invested in it, but that as soon as that industry shows a loss the whole community must be taxed in order to meet that loss, though in no circumstances shall the community share in the profits made in good times. That is a doctrine which goes to the very root of the claims of those who uphold the virtues of private enterprise.
  1324
  Surely the time has come for us to re-examine this matter, and I believe that, if one could put aside the enormous number, and increasing number, of sectional vested interests who are now living on doles from the Exchequer of one kind and another, reasonable men, free from the prejudices which that state of affairs naturally creates, would come to see that if the State is to be called upon to bear the losses of private trade then the time has come when the State should take over that trade and enjoy the profits of superior, broadscale organisation. This type of legislation is the worst kind of class legislation, and it is no wonder that the electors, who put this Government in power in the belief that it would carry on the administration of the country free from party and class bias, are aghast at the use which is being made of the power then conferred. Not only is the Exchequer being raided to provide for the losses of private trade, but the taxation of the poor is being increased in order to provide doles for the rich, and here we have one of the worst cases of that kind. Hon. Members opposite are fond of alleging that the party to which I have the honour to belong, because they believe that it is to the interest of the community that no children shall be allowed to starve, and that no person who is unemployed through no fault of his own shall be allowed to fall below the subsistence level, stand for a policy of mass bribery, and allege that that policy is pursued for the purpose, indirectly, of buying votes.
  What of this policy? Here we have industry after industry being subsidised at the expense of the Exchequer, and the result is that all those who are receiving these payments have now a vested interest in the continuation of Tory Government; and every tradesman, every industrialist, everybody who thinks he can make a case for a subsidy, is busily getting into the queue and asking that he may receive early consideration. What benefits are the community receiving in exchange for this? I hope that hon. Members saw the cartoon the other day by that most brilliant political cartoonist, Mr. Low. In case it escaped attention I may say that it represented the taxpayer, with his empty money-box, being led from the Subsidy Stores by Aunt Runciman and Aunt Elliot; and when the taxpayer asked what he was going

  1325
  to do with the large number of ships and the large number of beasts which he had bought with his money, they accused the boy of reading Bolshevik literature, and told him that he must understand that he had not bought them but had merely paid for them.
  As the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol pointed out, another objection to this scheme is that there is no means test in it. When public money is provided for the purpose of avoiding the starvation of the poor, vast and complicated machinery is erected and applied to see that not one penny of that money is paid unless there is urgent and most desperate need. Here it does not matter how wealthy the person may be who has beasts which qualify under this Bill; he will share equally with the impecunious and struggling farmer. When this scheme develops and we come on to the next part of the programme, it seems inconceivable to me that even the present Government can go through with it. How are they going to face working class electors when those electors will have the knowledge that there has been added to the price of their meat a sum per pound for the sole purpose of reducing the price of the meat which they would like to eat but cannot afford? That will be the exact position which will arise when this levy is applied. It is one of our complaints against this extraordinary Measure that no attempt has been made to use this opportunity to institute an inquiry into the extraordinary difference between the price paid by the consumer of English beef and the price received by the producer of it. It is difficult for one who, like myself, is unversed in the phraseology of agriculture, to reduce the wholesale prices to retail terms, but I observed in the "Times" of 21st June a letter from a beef producer pointing out a phrase in the report of the Fat Stock Commission. The phrase was:
  "It is also in the producer's interest that his products should be purchased freely and to an increasing extent by the population of the cities."
  The beef producer goes on to say that it is doubtful whether a large proportion of the population of the cities have ever tasted a piece of good English beef. That is literally true. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent I doubt whether a third or even a quarter
  1326
  of the population have ever had any English beef. In the whole of London, including the well-to-do parts, of the total beef consumed two-thirds is frozen and chilled beef. A great mass of people eat frozen beef, not because they enjoy it but because they cannot afford English beef. These poor people are to have a levy placed upon their food. They are to be asked to pay a. special tax which the rich will not be asked to pay in order to provide a direct dole for people who may be a hundred times as well off as they are.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Is the hon. Member's contention that the cure for all that is the extinction of the production of home beef altogether?
  Mr. PALING: That is your business. Face the issue.
  Mr. WILMOT: I am very glad that the Minister has asked that question. As he has done so, I may be allowed to indicate what I think ought to be done. It seems to me that the proper thing to do is what the Commission suggests, namely, to improve the consumption of home-grown English beef and to allow, in some way, those people who are now forced by poverty to buy foreign beef to join the small select number who are able to buy home-grown beef. The price of such beef as best English sirloin was, I am informed, on the average about 9d. or 10d. a lb. before the War. I am informed to-day that those cuts are being sold in the shops in my constituency at an average price of ls. 2d. to ls. 6d. per lb. or nearly twice the pre-War price. But the farmer who has written this interesting letter in the "Times" tells me that he, as a producer, is receiving a price which is no higher than and is sometimes less than the pre-War price. What accounts for that fact? Why is it that when the producer is only getting the pre-War price the consumer is paying double the pre-War price?
  Mr. ELLIOT: Is the hon. Member's remedy to break the wages of the assistants in the butchers' shops?
  Mr. WILMOT: I am sorry that the Minister should be so anxious to interrupt me. If he gives me time I shall endeavour to submit something which is, at any rate, less objectionable than the scheme which he has put forward. In order that I may do so, however, it is

  1327
  necessary that I should first sketch in the background, in front of which these Measures are being indicated. I think it is important when public money is being poured out to the producers of beef to inquire why the producers are not getting the price which the consumer is forced to pay. The Minister may laugh but it seems to me that before we raid the Exchequer, before we take money from the unemployed and give it to the producers of beef, we should at any rate inquire into what is happening to the enormous price which the consumer is forced to pay. It may be that there is waste in distribution. There may be, and I think there probably is a vast monopoly vested interest in the distributive trade in meat, which has the markets and the whole distributive organisation in its grip and is able, between the farmer and the butcher's shop, to exact a toll which accounts for these astonishing differences. I suggest that the Minister instead of laughing about it might inquire into it. There must be some explanation of why my constituents, for example, are forced to pay double the pre-War price with tie knowledge that their farm-labourer friends in the country are only getting about one-third extra on their pre-War wages.
  Mr. PETHERICK: Would it not be well for the hon. Member to address that question as to the difference between wholesale and retail prices to the cooperative societies?
  Mr. WILMOT: If the co-operative societies were introducing legislation for the attention of this House it would be proper to ask them to make that inquiry. As it is, the co-operative organisation is only one of the retail distributors and we have not alleged that it is the retail shop which is pocketing these profits or levying this toll. I do not know who is levying it and as far as I can see from the official documents available, the Minister does not know either. But the fact remains that the gap is there and that somebody is plundering this trade, somebody who takes no part either in serving at the counter or in producing the goods. I should have thought that it would have been better had the Minister directed his attention to the prevention of that plunder, rather than to the further plunder of the unfortunate consumer. Evidently the Minister thinks
  1328
  otherwise and we must leave the matter to the judgment of the Supreme Court in these matters—the electorate itself.
  I feel that this beef subsidy raises in its most acute form the whole question of the policy of subsidy. Now perhaps the Minister will permit me to indicate what I regard as the better course though I should not have ventured to do so without his invitation. First it seems to me that he should inquire into the reason for the gap between the retail price and what is received by the producers. It is possible that by closing that gap we could do more to put the fat stock industry on its feet than by any other means, but generally it seems to me the Minister's policy is the wrong policy. We have a surplus of agricultural production. We have an admittedly serious under-consumption of that production and serious underfeeding in a vast area both of our child and our adult population. Two courses are open to the Government. One is to see what steps can be taken to raise the standard of living of the working-clas consumer, to double the consumption of home-grown beef and of milk. I merely use the word "double" in a very wide sense. I mean to increase the potential consumption by Government action calculated to raise wage levels, to reduce the unemployment figures and thus immediately create a demand which would solve this problem in the right way, which would exhaust the increased production by increasing the consumption.
  The Minister is doing the exact opposite to that. That is why he is coming to be known as "the Minister for Scarcity." He sees a vast unconsumed production and instead of turning to the underfed consumer and enabling that consumer to consume more he solves the problem by reducing production. It is all very well to try to ignore it, but my constituents tell me that they can no longer afford to buy bacon, not because there is a shortage, but because there is a glut of bacon. They tell me that they are unable to buy as much meat as they used to buy. The margin between subsistence and lack of subsistence is so small in the overwhelming majority of working-class families that the increase of 2d. per lb. on meat means that on one or two days of the week in those households there will be no meat where there was meat before. There will be a reduction of consumption due to the rise in price

  1329
  and the Minister will have solved his problem, by getting a higher price over a more limited field. If he asks me what I think is wrong with his general policy I say that he is dealing with a situation of over-production by reducing that production and creating scarcity prices when he ought to attack the problem at the other end, and raise the consumption level by raising the standard of living of the working people.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Hear, hear!
  Mr. WILMOT: I am glad to hear the Minister's approval. I hope his concurrence in that view will be followed by actions diametrically opposite to those which have already been taken.
  Mr. ELLIOT: There are 800,000 more people now in jobs.
  Mr. PALING: Not your fault. Mr. ELLIOT: No, but our policy.
  Mr. WILMOT: The right hon. Gentleman is now falling back on the sort of thing which we hear from the Front Bench in every Debate nowadays. Hon. Gentlemen opposite point to the improvement in the unemployment figures. They know very well the cause of that improvement. It is not any success on the part of the Government. It is the Government's outstanding and splendid failure—their failure to keep this country on the Gold Standard. There we have the major explanation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but I am happy in knowing that those who study this problem free from political bias agree with me. If hon. Gentlemen will study, for instance, the last issue of the "Economist" they will find some evidence that I am not alone in my opinion. I hope between now and the production of the second part of this pernicious scheme, the Minister will reconsider the matter. How far are we going with this policy? How many more departments of the agricultural industry are to be subsidised in this way? To what extent are we going to raise the cost of living of the very Poor for the benefit of the well-to-do? One can only hope that, complicated as these matters are, the public who are asked to pay these subsidies and the working class families who are asked to go without in order that those who have plenty already may have more, will understand the true meaning of the
  1330
  Minister's policy and will take appropriate action at the right time.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. PATRICK: The subject matter of our discussion has already been very thoroughly dealt with in this Debate and in the Debate of Monday last on the Financial Resolution, and I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) except on one point. It seems to me that as a result of the discussions of this matter so far, three propositions have been advanced and have not been contradicted. The first is that agriculture is still one of our greatest, if not our greatest industry. The second is that the livestock branch of agriculture is an essential part of the industry the collapse of which would threaten to bring down the whole structure. The third is that such a collapse is in sight, things being as they are now. The last proposition was questioned by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) but by no one else. So far, we have practically got agreement but at this point, unfortunately, agreement stops.
  This Bill has been attacked from the Opposition side of the House on two different grounds. Two lines of criticism, which are mutually contradictory, have been directed against it. The first is concerned with the word "subsidy." The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has used that word in his Amendment and I think it would be agreed by most hon. Members that a subsidy, as such, is an unsound policy. But surely it is not only legitimate but necessary when examining the Bill, also to examine the White Paper which preceded it and if we do so we see in fact that what is proposed here is not a subsidy but a short-term loan. A sum not exceeding £3,000,000 is to be advanced for a period not exceeding six months. If that is so, it is only common sense to realise that that fact changes the whole proportions of the affair and the whole basis of argument against the subsidy, and makes that argument inapplicable in the present ease. The other line of criticism, which has been expressed at some length by the hon. Member for East Fulham seems to be contradictory to the first line. His complaint was not that the Bill provides for

  1331
  nothing more than a subsidy—if it had only done that he would not have minded so much—but that it involves discriminatory taxation between the poorest classes and the rest of the community.
  Mr. WILMOT: I cannot have made myself quite clear. I hold the view that the Bill involves both a subsidy and discriminatory taxation.
  Mr. PATRICK: I do not think that the hon. Member can have both; this is either a loan or a subsidy.
  Mr. WILMOT: It is both.
  Mr. PATRICK: It is a loan if we have to pay it back. But I will not argue about that. I want to take up the second point, which is that this penalises a large section of the community. That argument is not valid. It is, in fact, the old classic argument against Protection generally, and it has been used so many times although it has proved itself to be inapplicable. We have had pretty wide experiments in tariffs during the last three years, and the hon. Member himself would be the last to say that those tariffs had resulted in a widespread rise in prices. With reference to beef, there has been spasmodic but a fairly wide-scale application of quantitative restrictions, though no rise in price has resulted; exactly the contrary. The arguments used by the hon. Member and many others who preceded him look all right in theory, but they have nothing to do with practice, and they are not strictly relevant to the case.
  If we can trust report and rumour, the Government in the arrangements which they will make in six months' time propose to rely not on a direct tariff or straight, quantitative restriction, but to apply what is known as the system of deficiency payments. That principle is a very simple one, and the consumer cannot possibly be affected adversely or favourably. Under that system, the producer sells and the consumer buys at the market price. The next stage is that the producer is willing, up to a point where his prices become uneconomical, to pay into a fund a levy. The hon. Member says that that is coming out of the pockets of the poorest class. If that were true in practice, it would be a very important factor. The fact is that the more pounds of beef that come in, the more pennies go to the fund, which, in turn,
  1332
  will go to the home producer. The obvious deduction from that is that when the scheme gets into working order—prices are not practicable at the present time—this country can have, without damaging its own producers, a very much more ample supply of imports than would be the case under a plain tariff or under a plain quantitative restriction.
  Mr. PALING: Is that the intention?
  Mr. PATRICK: I think it is precisely the intention, although I cannot speak for the Government. I understand it to be so. It seems to be a very elastic system which benefits the producer, with the minimum of harm to the consumer, and vice versa. It has worked that way with wheat. This experiment is very well worth trying. I believe that it will prove to be a success, and I should not be at all surprised to find the system applied, with changes, to other commodities.
  Another criticism which has been not so much expressed as implied takes the form of gibes, some good-natured and some less so, at the Minister of Agriculture and at agriculturists generally on the ground that they open their mouths much too wide. It is suggested that the agricultural industry has received an improper share of attention from the Government. My answer to that is a very simple one. Once you accept in any form the principle of direct State intervention for an industry, agriculture has the best claim, both on economic and social grounds. That is a very sweeping statement, and I will give my reason for it. Take some of the other industries in this country. Take coal, cotton, shipping and 'shipbuilding. Those four are entirely different and not comparable, except in one respect, which is that they have all been suffering for a very long time under very grave depression. Would any hon. Member representing a mining district say that he thinks we could ever recover the proportion of the export trade in coal that we once had? It is obvious that the increasing use of oil and of water power and the increase in the production of coal in foreign countries have wiped out a considerable part of our trade.
  Precisely the same consideration applies to cotton, because of the most remarkable and unexpected economic revival of China. No one will maintain that Lancashire will ever get back its

  1333
  share of the export trade, because the competition against it is too strong. In regard to shipping, no one will maintain that there is any immediate prospect of an increase in the total amount of sea-borne commerce in the world as a whole, and now that the world has only one idea in its head, that of self-sufficiency, a general increase of that sort is not possible. If an increase took place, no one can maintain that our shipping would ever again take the place which it once had. The future of those industries is almost entirely outside the control of any Government and neither the present Government with their policy of subsidies and rationalisation, or of hon. Gentlemen opposite with their policy of socialisation and export boards can do more than touch the fringe of the problem, and we all know it.
  What a contrast we have in the industry of agriculture. There, alone, is a very large margin of great prosperity and expansion. I will not weary the House with statistics, but will confine myself to mentioning the one branch of industry which we are discussing, that of meat production, although in the other branches great extension is obviously possible. In the last 30 years, the home producer's share in the home consumption of meat has dropped by 10 per cent., and there is no reason why that percentage should not be restored without any dislocation or hardship to any section of the community. The same kind of consideration applies to many other branches of agriculture. Agriculture merits a special kind of consideration. We are faced with the terrific problem of 2,000,000 unemployed, and if we are to re-employ them it is not merely a matter of keeping our industries going, keeping our end up, or not losing ground; it is definitely a matter of expansion. Where can we find a practical proposition, except in the industry of agriculture? It is short-sighted in the extreme to oppose a loan of £3,000,000 to a branch of the industry of agriculture that is in desperate straits.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. MILNE: Last week we were discussing the Financial Resolution, and, apart from representatives of the Government, only one Scottish Member took part in the Debate. To-day we are dealing with the Second Reading of the
  1334
  Bill, and Scottish Members are still conspicuous by their absence. I say that in no sense of reproach, but because there is an aspect of this Bill which has not received sufficient attention.
  Mr. D. MASON: I am sorry to interrupt, the hon. Member, but I would point out that I had the honour of speaking earlier in this Debate.
  Mr. MILNE: I offer the hon. Member my apologies. The aspect of the Bill which I have mentioned, and which has escaped attention, was referred to by the Minister last Monday when he alluded to the striking fact that out of the total agricultural produce in England little more than one-third consisted of meat. He contrasted the situation in Scotland, and he told us that more than half the total produce in Scotland takes the form of beef. I welcome the Bill because it is a good Bill. I welcome it on its merits. I do so also for another reason, which is of a psychological character. The Minister of Agriculture is the best liked, but also the best abused man in Scotland. That is the fate of all reformers. The reason is that there is an idea prevalent in many quarters in Scotland—I blush to say that at times I have shared it—that Scottish agricultural interests are neglected by the Government. The idea is that the Government frame their agricultural policy on lines designed to suit the requirements of the English farmers. Many a time I have told farmers of the benefits of the wheat quota, and many a time I have been told in reply, "Yes, but those benefits are reaped by the English farmer." I attach value to this Bill because it is designed to rescue the livestock industry, an industry which is of preponderating interest to Scotland, and I believe it will go a long way towards dissipating that myth.
  There is another reason why I value the Bill. It is, quite frankly, because of the cash payment to our farmers. In our homely phrase, they will be able to "han'le the siller." I am well aware that this proposal must be anathema to my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches. It offends, I suppose, against the principle of Free Trade, or, perhaps, the Gold Standard. I know nothing about the contraventions of those alleged principles, and I care less. All that I know

  1335
  is that here we have a form of tangible assistance which is going to rescue the livestock industry and preserve it for the farmers and farm workers who depend for their livelihood upon it. It is not a loan; it is not, assuredly, a gift; in my view it is a species of token payment—it is a recognition by the Government of a debt due to the farming community, and an acknowledgment of an obligation to see the farmers through the present crisis. I suppose that discretion is an excellent quality, even in the most obscure Member of Parliament, but sometimes it is a great relief to tell the truth. What is in my mind, and I have no doubt that it has often been very present in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture, is that this grant is due to expire, under the terms of the Bill, on the 31st March. For my part, I have complete confidence in the energy of the Minister of Agriculture, and I feel sure that by then the long-term policy will have commenced to operate; but
  "The best-laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft a-gley."
  Suppose that the long-term policy is not ready by then. Again I say that I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will have all the parts of the machinery assembled, and that it will be ready; but let us suppose that it is not ready by the 31st March. Then the position would be simply this—let us be quite frank about it—that, if the long-term policy is not ready by the 31st March, the Minister of Agriculture, having put his band to the plough, must see the thing through, and these payments must be renewed, or, at any rate, the assistance must be continued in some equivalent form. I do riot suppose that these reflections will very greatly disturb my right hon. Friend, and for my part. I have complete confidence in his energy and in his well known political activity. Indeed, the only doubt that crosses my mind is that I hope that, as the Ides of March approach, the result will not be an over-stimulation of that volcanic activity which we have sometimes experienced from him. The farming community will welcome this Bill, and I believe that it will be equally welcomed by that larger community to whom the prosperity of agriculture is of vital concern, the general public of Scotland.
  6.50 p.m.
  Marquess of TITCHFI ELD: Whenever I listen to a speech by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), whom I am very glad to see in his place this afternoon, I am reminded of the ancient Paduans. History recounts that the ancient Paduans owned a very wonderful well. It was wonderful because, after anyone had bathed in it. they could make themselves believe anything; and it had a still more wonderful quality, because, not only could anybody, after bathing in the well, make themselves believe anything, but they could make other people believe it too. My hon. Friend's oratory certainly has the first virtue, but I think it is distinctly lacking in the second. I did not have the privilege of listening to the speech that he made on Monday, but I read it very carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT on Tuesday morning, and, if my hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, I thought it was hardly worthy of him.
  He started by sneering at what the Government had done for agriculture. As he has done that, I should like to ask him a question. He certainly knows much more about agriculture than anyone else in the Labour party, even more than the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who does not even know how or how not to doctor up a horse. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of country life must be very small, and, therefore, in a competition between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for the Ministry of Agriculture the hon. Member for Don Valley ought to win by a good many lengths. I want to ask him one specific question. If his party is returned to power, will he, as Minister of Agriculture, first of all scrap the Agricultural Marketing Act as it is at the present moment; and. secondly, will he by his policy take away the good things which the Government have already given to the farmers of this country? No hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench has made the position of the Socialist party clear in this respect. My hon. Friend reminded the House that there is a by-election in progress in the Rushcliffe Division, and I think the position ought to be made quite clear to the farmers in the Rushcliffe Division before polling

  1337
  day. As it has not been made clear by my hon. Friend in this House, I hope that, in fairness to the farmers of Rushcliffe, the Socialist candidate in this by-election will make his position quite clear.
  My hon. Friend also said that the organisation proposals in connection with the meat subsidy were not enough. I rather agree with him in that, but do not let us forget that these proposals are merely the vanguard of other proposals which are coming along. I am perfectly certain that, if I may use a military term, when my right hon. Friend brings up the main body of his proposals they will be better organised and better disciplined than perhaps the vanguard is at the present moment. Reading further the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley, I find that he talked about the poor goose having to be plucked so that the rich peacock may live. That remark, of course, is completely untrue, and before I sit down I hope to prove to my hon. Friend that that is the case. He also made remarks about Noble Lords and juicy steaks. Remarks of that sort may be all very well when he is addressing his constituents in the Don Valley, but, if he does not mind my saying so, they are hardly worthy of an hon. Member who has the respect and admiration, and, if I may say so, the affection of every Member of this House. I dare-say a little spot of class hatred does not do you any harm when you are perched rather insecurely on the end of a soapbox; I do not know; but it does no honour to a man whom we all want to see, regardless of party, a respected and loved leader of the people in the future. Let me, therefore, if I can, get away from the sort of goose-and-peacock mentality into which my hon. Friend got, and try to argue the case for beef and for agriculture generally as dispassionately as I can.
  I am glad to hear that this subsidy is not to be given to cow beef. I think that that is very wise. There is too much cow beef on the market in this country, and its elimination will allow the farmer to breed a better type of beef than he is breeding at present, with the result that better beef will be put on the market for the people of this country. I am one of those who believe that at the next election the Government will have to launch a big land settlement scheme, for
  1338
  the very simple reason that nine-tenths of our people live in the towns, and no country can be a great country under those conditions. But I think it is quite obvious that it is no use putting people on the land until the land is made remunerative. It will be a perfect waste of time to launch a big land settlement scheme unless agricultural prices can be made once more remunerative. I believe it would be possible for the Government, under a big land settlement scheme, to put many thousands of people on to the land, which, of course, would be of the greatest benefit to the towns.
  Let us see how that benefit would accrue. First of all, many thousands of men would be given new jobs, and not only that, but other industries would be given a great fillip as well. Think of the many articles that would be demanded in connection with a great land settlement scheme. First of all, many houses would be built, and there would be a tremendous demand for bricks., More slates would be wanted, more timber would be wanted, more iron and more glass would be wanted, and therefore more coal would be wanted—and we must remember that the mere getting of coal gives great scope to other industries. There would be an increased demand for artificial manures, tractors and horses, and also—and I say this because I have the honour to be the President of the Notes Rural Community Council—a great land settlement scheme would help tremendously the saddlers, the carpenters, and all those trades which are going through a very difficult time indeed, and which ought to be employed in connection with the industry of agriculture. Unless agriculture is made to pay, none of these benefits can be produced. Unless the beef trade is made to pay, the whole of agriculture will fall to the ground.
  Let me return to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. He who represents miners as I do, knows perfectly well that under the new conditions many thousands of his constituents will never get back to the mines again. Why riot, therefore, try to put some of these miners upon the land? I understand that there are a good many miners on the land at the moment, but unless prices can be made remunerative it will be no use having a scheme to put the mine workers of this country into agriculture. By re-

  1339
  munerative prices I do not mean that the prices necessarily go up. Even, however, if they do go up slightly, is it not better to put thousands of men ma the land in happy circumstances than to have them hanging about the towns as they are at present forced to do?
  I wish to touch for a moment on the question of whether this subsidy will put up the price of food to the people. I am absolutely convinced that it will not. I do not mind the subsidy for two reasons. If it is to be paid by the taxpayer, on the whole the rich man will be helping in a very admirable cause; but if the money is to be collected in the future from the Dominions and from the Argentine, I am perfectly certain that the cost of living will not go up, because the £3,000,000 will be purely an addition paid by the Dominions over and above the ordinary price paid by the consumer.
  To return once more to the hon. Member for Don Valley. The hon. Member coined the expression that my right hon. Friend ought to be called the Minister of Scarcity. I ask my hon. Friend to cast his mind back to the years 1929 to 1931. When the Tory Government left off, the unemployed numbered 1,250,000 men, women and children. When my hon. Friend's party left off, there were nearly 3,000,000 unemployed. He is a very fair person, and I am sure that if he casts his mind back to those years he will withdraw that rather amusing sneer which he made at my right hon. Friend's expense and own, as three-quarters of us own in this House, that my right hon. Friend is doing his honest, able and level best to bring prosperity once more back to an industry which is fully deserving of it.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. DUCKWORTH: I so rarely venture to address the House that I feel that it is almost necessary for me to pray the indulgence that is accorded to a maiden speaker. I wish in a very few words to give my support to the Bill which we are discussing this afternoon, and which is designed as an emergency Measure to meet an extremely critical situation. I represent a constituency which is a market town and so is vitally interested, both directly and indirectly, in the livestock industry. The case for taking some immediate action is so overwhelming and
  1340
  has already been stressed so far, that it is quite unnecessary for me to bring further evidence of the critical situation which is at present confronting not only the producers but many hundreds of persons in my constituency who depend upon the livestock industry for their livelihood. We have heard this afternoon a good deal on the subject of the reorganisation of the industry. I have no doubt that reorganisation is necessary, as was foreshadowed in the White Paper that has been issued by the Government. I must confess, however, that I remain profoundly sceptical as to how much can be accomplished through reorganisation towards lessening the margin between the price that the producer receives and the price that the consumer has to pay. I am certainly convinced that if, as hon. Members opposite would no doubt advocate, the whole distribution were centred in a State organisation, the margin that would exist would be even greater than it is at present.
  Hon. Members opposite may talk of reorganisation and go into the Lobby against this Bill. Surely, however, nobody seriously believes that reorganisation by itself can go very far towards restoring a remunerative price level. I believe that no Government could possibly have remained inactive in face of the present situation, taking into account the fact that the livestock industry is one of the pivots of the whole agricultural situation. There has been some argument this afternoon as to whether these proposals comprise a subsidy or not. I accept the fact quite frankly that this money is a subsidy, and I believe that there are no practical alternatives to the proposals contained in this Bill. They are, in fact, made inevitable both by the Ottawa and by the Argentine Agreements. However much we may dislike a policy of accumulating subsidies to the agricultural industry, I believe that it is at present the only way out of a desperate situation. The House has been informed that this money will be repaid from the proceeds of a levy on imported meat which will be the subject of future legislation. Whatever form this levy may take, the fact remains that so far as this Debate is concerned we are proposing to apply a subsidy to meet the present situation. It is certainly a subsidy in the sense that this money will be found directly or indirectly by the whole community. This

  1341
  particular subsidy is fully justified as a temporary measure, though I must confess that I have some apprehension as to the administrative difficulties that may be encountered in administering this scheme.
  There is one other aspect of these proposals on which I should like to say few words only. The Minister is faced with an immensely difficult problem, that of fostering and maintaining the agricultural industry of this country and ensuring that it shall continue to give employment to at least the number of persons who are at present engaged in it. He is faced with that problem in a world that has gone so mad that it appears to imagine that it is possible to carry on international trade in a market where there are only sellers. He is faced with two obvious difficulties. First, in any action he takes he runs some risk of inflicting damage on the vital exporting industries of this country. Secondly, at the present level of world prices there is scarcely an agricultural commodity which can be produced in this country without the protection of a subsidy, a tariff or a quota. In these circumstances it is essential that we should concentrate on those branches of agriculture to which this country is most suited.
  I believe that the vast majority of the people of this country recognise those facts and acknowledge the supreme importance of maintaining the agricultural industry. I believe that they will only continue to support the present policy of the Government, and to pay the price that these subsidies make necessary, on two conditions. The first is that the industry should be properly organised, and the second is that, where the device of a subsidy is applied, the subsidies shall bear some reasonable relation to one another. We have applied the device of a subsidy to wheat and milk, and for the last 10 years we have voted annually large sums of money to maintain the sugar-beet industry. It would certainly be out of order for me to discuss this afternoon the merits or otherwise of that particular subsidy. I should merely like to say that in comparing the sugar-beet industry with the livestock industry there is surely no question whatever that the livestock industry is by far the more important of the two. Under normal conditions there are few countries that are
  1342
  better suited than this, through climate and other conditions, to the production of cattle. This is an industry that we cannot in any circumstances allow to languish. The sugar-beet industry, on the other hand, has been created purely by subsidy, and it is now quite clear that without a subsidy it can never survive.
  It is time that we in this House showed some better sense of proportion in dealing with these questions. 'We are faced with some difficulty in considering agricultural questions, because although we consider from time to time various proposals that are brought forward to deal with various branches of the industry, the opportunities that occur for considering agricultural policy as a whole are extremely limited. I believe that nothing could be more fantastic than that we should go on voting, year after year, these large sums for an industry like the sugar-beet industry, and yet that the greatest reluctance should be shown when proposals are introduced on the lines of this Bill. If reluctance had not been shown, action would have been taken a long time ago on similar lines. I support these proposals, because I believe that they are essential if the industry is to be saved from collapse, and I shall not hesitate to go into the Lobby in support of the Bill.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. TREE: First of all, I should like, on behalf of my constituents and many others in the livestock industry, to congratulate the Government on the action they are proposing to take, and to say that bankruptcy has for two years been facing the livestock industry. At the same time, I should like to utter a word of warning. The sum of 5s. a cwt., aggregating £3,000,000, must seem to hon. Members who are not conversant with the livestock industry to be a very large sum of money. We must remember what a tremendous part livestock
  plays in agriculture. It represents nearly 40 per cent. of the total and is nearly twice as great again as the whole of the dairy industry. When you take such industries as wheat, which only constitutes 5 per cent. of our agriculture, or fruit and vegetables, which respectively only amount to about 4 per cent., one sees how important it is that the livestock industry should be supported and saved. It is important that the

  1343
  quantitative regulations which the Minister intends to put on should be so severe that there should be no drop in prices. The autumn glut comes into force in September, and it is very much feared in my part of the world that it will come earlier this year owing to the lack of food and also to the drought. If it does, animals will very soon be put on to the market, which may cause a drop in prices and take away all the effect that this subsidy is intended to have. Therefore, it seems to me of the utmost importance that my right hon. Friend should see that quantitative regulations are enforced at the earliest possible date.
  I wonder if it would not be possible to do something on the lines of what is being already so admirably tried out in the bacon industry. A figure of probable consumption has been ascertained. It has then been ascertained how much can be produced at home, and the rest is being allotted out to the exporting countries. Could not that be done in the case of livestock? In regard to the long-term policy, I am very glad that the Minister hopes to introduce a levy scheme. That is a scheme which has been worked out in my part of the country by some very hard-headed producers themselves, and, consequently, I think it can be called a definite producers' scheme. I was a very early convert to it, and I spent a considerable time in trying to ascertain the views not only of producers but of all sections of the livestock industry. I was not able to find any serious criticism, but I found a great deal of approval among all sections of the industry, from the producers right through to the retailers.
  The pity is that it cannot be put into effect immediately. I do not like mortgaging my own income in advance, and it seems to me that that is the sort of thing that is being done now. This subsidy is mortgaging the future income which is to come in from the levy. We are given to understand that the reason is that the Dominions refuse at present to understand and appreciate our difficulty. There is no one who is stronger on inter-Imperial trade than I am. I think trade relations within the Empire are going to play a great part in future. At the same time we cannot allow our own home industry to go bankrupt. We cannot allow the men employed in it to
  1344
  become unemployed. The principle was clearly enunciated at Ottawa that the home market should get the first chance, the Dominions should get the second, and the foreigner the third, but it seems to me that in the case of meat that has been entirely reversed. It is the foreigner who has had the first chance, and we have come out very much last.
  There is going to be a need over the next two years to work out a long-range policy for agriculture. I consider that what we have been doing up to the present is merely internal reconstruction of the industry. In that long-term policy the Dominions must needs play a very great part. We have to get to understand their problems and their needs, and the same thing applies to them. They have to understand our problems and our needs. It is in my opinion a very great pity that at present they have failed to understand and to come to an agreement which means so very much to our agriculture. I hope that our extremely tactful and efficient Minister of Agriculture may be able to persuade them in the next six months to see our present needs, and that this subsidy will not have to continue for an indefinite period, because a levy scheme is obviously a better one than a subsidy. I should like to say how much I am in agreement with the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) about the need for land settlement in the future. It is going to play a very great part in the next few years. I do not think anyone will deny that, if only agriculture is put on its feet, it will be possible to get more people employed in it than any other industry in the land to-day.
  7.22 p.m.
  Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I support and thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Measure. It embodies his short-time policy. It is an emergency Bill which gives the producer of meat some 5s. per live cwt. or 9s. per dead cwt. on certain types of cattle between next September and March of next year. We hope that during that period the Minister may be successful in carrying out negotiations with the Dominions and with the Argentine and that this Bill may he superseded by one putting forward the long-term policy. We all realise the parlous position of the meat-producing industry, and I am confident that Members on the

  1345
  Opposition benches realise it equally. I have never been one of those who accuse Members of the official Opposition of caring nothing or knowing nothing of agriculture. I have often listened to their speeches, and I feel that they have the interests of agriculture at heart. I realise that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) in particular desire to help to bring some prosperity to the industry. We are alike there. We may differ as to the methods by which we propose to bring about that prosperity, but I often wonder whether we differ as much as we appear to do. When the Minister has been bringing forward some of his measures beneficial to agriculture, I have watched the faces of hon. Members opposite, and I have observed that in their heart of hearts they would like to support them, but suddenly they realise that they are sitting on the Front Opposition Bench and that it is the duty of an opposition to oppose. They seek some loophole in the Minister's proposals, and I sympathise with them because I know how very few loopholes he leaves for them. My sympathy is not lessened because of my personal regard for those two hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. J. P. Thomas) and I have been insistent in our appeals to the Minister to do something to help the livestock industry. I have many times felt ashamed at the extent to which I have worried him, but it is only by importunity that one obtains anything, and at long last I have received a reward for my importunity. We have worried the Minister because we were trying to do our duty to our constituents. Herefordshire is almost entirely agricultural. Every man and woman—agricultural labourer, farmer, landlord, tradesman, professional man, whoever he is—depends almost entirely, directly or indirectly, upon agriculture for his livelihood. When I speak on agriculture, when I bore the House on agriculture, I want hon. Members to think that I am trying to do my bit for my constituency, and I want them to forgive me for boring them.
  It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set doom by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  Order for the Third Reading read. [King's Consent signified.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. LAWS0N: I apologise to the House for interfering with the regular course of business, but I assure hon. Members that the matter to which I want to call attention will not take long. I and my hon. Friends who are responsible for raising the question are in entire agreement with the general objects of the Bill, but in the composition of the Commission provided for in the Bill, no provision is made whatever for the representation of the workers. I wish that we had been able to put this matter before the Committee which dealt with the Bill. The miners' organisation in Durham drew my attention to this matter some months ago, and I made inquiries as to when the Bill was likely to be introduced. I discovered that it was likely to be introduced in another place, and I took what steps I could to keep in contact with its progress, but, unfortunately, owing to the general trend of business, I was not able to raise this matter before the Bill had gone through the Report stage in this House. My hon. Friends and I who are taking an active interest in the matter are usually able to keep in step with the business of the House, but we have been connected with Committees generally and have not had an opportunity of directing attention to this Bill.
  One of the main objects of the Bill is to make arrangements for the proportion of interests to be represented on the commission and also for the method of their election. The councils of Newcastle, Gateshead, Tynemouth, South Shields, Jarrow and Wallsend are to have among them 16 representatives upon the Commission, and of the 15 representatives of other interests, five are to be elected by shipowners, five by coalowners, and five by traders, making 31 representatives in all. There are to be two co-opted commissioners.
  It seems to us at this time of day that, in dealing with matters concerning a great river upon which the products of

  1347
  the industries round about are shipped, the workers in those industries should have some representation upon the commission, to say nothing about workers generally. If we take the Port of London as a model, it will be found that there are usually two workers' representatives on their elected bodies. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport is to given an answer on this matter, but we believe that we are making such a reasonable claim, particularly when there are to be five representatives of the coal owners, of the shipowners and of the traders, that some undertaking ought to be given. Out of all that vast industrial area the particular people who are not to be represented at all are those who are as much interested in the trade of the North as any of the other people who are to sit upon the commission. I should have thought that at this time of day the commissioners themselves, or those who are at present responsible for the craft on the River, for the carriage of commodities and for the general success of trade would have taken the initiative in recommending the appointment of workers' representatives on the commission. This has not been done, and we have to adopt the unusual procedure to-night of stating our case on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill, which has been introduced for the better government, and generally for the improvement of conditions on the river.
  I do not know whether the Minister of Transport or the Chairman of Ways and Means has responsibility in this matter, but I would ask whether it is not possible to recommit the do not think it would take long to come to an understanding—with the object of arrangements being made to secure the representation of miners on the commission. Alternatively, would it not be possible to make arrangements to enable a representative of the miners to be co-opted on the commission? Is it not in keeping with modern times that, on a commission set, up in this way to deal with public interests, the interests of employe should be represented? It is indefensible that the workers in this great industrial area should be totally un-recognised. It may be said that this matter was not raised in the proper way and that it is too late. I trust that someone will give an answer before we
  1348
  are asked to come to a decision on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: I have been wondering who is to reply on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. There ought to be somebody to speak for them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because it would be in keeping with custom in these debates. Many Private Bills have been challenged at 7.30 in the evening as this Bill is being challenged, and there has always been someone prepared to speak on behalf of the promoters of those Bills. I wish to support the statements which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). We are at a disadvantage in having to debate this question on the Third Reading, but we are to be more pitied than blamed or condemned. Last Friday morning I was present in the House, but I did not happen to pick up my Order Paper soon enough. When I did so, I was surprised to find that this Bill had been placed upon the Order Paper for that day. I think that notice should be given when Private Bills are to be put upon the Order Paper, so that those who are interested in them may be here in order, if necessary, to take exception to them. I confess that we missed the opportunity last Friday, and, although we are raising the matter now, we do not really want to delay the Third Reading of the Bill, nor do we desire to force a Division. I do not know whether it is possible to recommit the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street has suggested, but, if not, there is still the other course open which he pointed out. The House should remember that this is a Bill to alter the constitution of the Tyne Improvement Commission. We consider that when an alteration of such an important commission is to take place provision should be made for the workers to be represented upon the commission. The Bill makes no provision for representation by workers. The Tyne Improvement Commission employ, and are responsible for, a good many working men, and there ought to be at least one representative of the workers upon the commission.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: By workers' representatives, does the hon. Gentleman mean the people who work on the Tyneside, or the people who work in the pits, the coal from which is shipped from the Tyne?
  Mr. BATEY: This matter has been raised by the Durham Miners' Association who come in close contact with the River Tyne. We are not so much pledged to a miner's representative so long as there are workers' representatives. If that were so, we should be satisfied.
  Mr. PEARS0N: Is it not possible for workers representatives on municipal corporations along the river to secure representation on the commission?
  Mr. BATEY: Yes, it is. I was for 20 years a member of a town council which is represented on the River Tyne Commission, and there was never a workers' representative allowed to sit upon that commission.
  Colonel CHAPMAN: The town council of which the hon. Member was formerly a member has now a Labour man as one of its representatives on the Tyne Commission.
  Mr. BATEY: I would ask the Government to remember that they are seeking to alter the representation on this Tyne Commission. That is the meaning of the Bill. The shipowners, coalowners and traders have representatives, and why should not the workers have one or two representatives? I know we are raising this on the Third Reading because we had not the privilege, of moving an Amendment on the Report stage, but we are simply proposing that the easiest course would be that the two members whom the commission has power to co-opt should be workers. That would satisfy us for the moment. The promoters of the Bill sent out a statement in which they stated in the last paragraph that all persons desiring any alteration in the constitution of the commission had had several opportunities of submitting their proposals to Parliament in accordance with the recognised procedure under the Standing Order dealing with private legislation by lodging a petition proposing the necessary Amendments in the Committee stage or opposing applications for permission. They submitted that a proposal for an alteration should not be allowed at the last stage of the Bill in the Second House. That gave me the impression that it was rather a reflection on my colleagues and myself who are raising this question. It may be perfectly true that petitions should have been lodged, but that does
  1350
  not deprive any Member of this House of his rights. Any Member has a right at any stage, even the Third Reading, to criticise a Bill and, if necessary, to divide the House. We do not want to take that course to-night, but I want to repeat what my colleague has already urged, that the River Tyne Commission should take the opportunity, as they have the power of electing or appointing two co-opted members, of appointing two workers.
  Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMANALLEN: Before the hon. Member sits down, will he say why it should be miners instead of sailors or seamen?
  Mr. BATEY: I have said that we do not limit it to miners as long as they are workers.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. Are we to be answered officially on this matter? I understood that somebody was going to speak from below. If the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to answer officially, it is all right. I take it that there is someone responsible to the House who can answer the case which has been put forward for workers' representation on the board.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know if the hon. Member is asking me that. I cannot be responsible for saying who is to reply for the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think, perhaps, I ought to say a word or two. It is not for me to express an opinion as to what the representation should be on the Commission, but I do think it is my duty to point out to the House what would be the effect of any attempt such as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) suggested in the way of recommitting the Bill for further Amendment. When the Bill was first introduced—I am speaking from recollection, but I know I am substantially right—it was not proposed to alter the constitution of the Commission, but, as a result I think of some adjustment of boundaries or something of that kind, it was desired to alter the constitution, and as that was not one of the objects of the Bill, additional provisions had to be asked for and was allowed, and that alteration desired was dealt with. If any steps were to be taken now to make any further

  1351
  [The Chairman of Ways and Means.] alteration of that kind, the same procedure would have to be gone through, and such action on the part of this House in recommitting the Bill in respect of this Clause or any part of it at this stage would have the effect of killing the Bill, because it would have to go through the machinery I have already referred to of a petition for additional provision, and it would have to be dealt with in another place as well as in this House. Therefore, while I aim not in any way authorised to express any opinion whatever on behalf of the promoters as to the merits of the case concerning the constitution of the Commission, I think it my duty to point out the result of any such interference with the Bill at its present stage. In saying that, I must not understood to object to or to criticise in any way the right of hon. Members to express their views. That is not a question that arises. All I have to deal with is the result of any attempt to make any such alteration of the Bill at the present moment and that would be, as I say, to kill it. I do not think that is the wish of hon. Members who have spoken or of the House generally.
  7.55 p.m.
  Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: I should like to point out that those of us who sat on the Committee can naturally deal only with questions that were brought before the Committee. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said quite frankly that he missed his opportunity. I would remind him that his party took part in a discussion with the promoters on a question connected with the position of certain boatmen who work on the Tyne and that was a labour problem of very great interest to them. It is a little curious that he should not then have put forward the claims of the Miners' Federation to representation. At that time the question was settled without dispute, and the Bill passed to the Unopposed Bills Committee. It is not so easy as he suggests. Recommittal has been dealt with by the Chairman, but to ask for special representation of one particular Union without any reference back to the Commissioners who already exist can hardly be called fair. If you ask for a different sort of representation on the Tyne Commission or any similar body, the Commissioners should be in a position to examine it. There is at present a very
  1352
  nice balance on the Commission. There are 16 representatives of the town council, and 16 representatives, not of definite trades so much as of dues payers on the river itself. The dues payers, in regard to coal, take as much interest as the men in the amount to be paid per ton, and, if you wish to make and change at all in the Commission, it would not be right to try to make a bargain with he Minister of Transport across the table at the last moment without giving the other people a chance of saying whether what is proposed to be done is fair. Hon. Members have had an opportunity in two Houses of putting their case before the Committee, and they have not done so. The Committee have taken the evidence and we have arrived at this stage, and it is not the time for an ex parte claim.
  Mr. LAWSON: Are we to have no reply to the point put? Is it not possible to give the workers' interest some consideration in reference to this matter? I think we really ought to have an answer, and it is no answer to say that this is raised on the Third Reading, because, after all, the Third Reading is a material part of the proceedings as well as any other.
  Sir G. ELLIS: You have town councillors popularly elected on one side, and the interests on the other have an equal share, including the two co-opted members. No doubt the Miners' Federation may claim to be considered just as the boatmen, but it is not right to attempt to force into the Bill or to suggest to the Minister of Transport that he should take in one particular interest at this last moment. If the whole matter is to be raised de novo to consider a new interest, all the others should be considered.
  7.58 p.m.
  Colonel CHAPMAN: If the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) be adopted, why should not the Northumberland miners ask for a similar representation? They have missed the boat, if I may say so. If they had brought forward this proposal at the proper time, it is likely that the Tyne Commission would have accepted it, because, of the two co-opted members on the Commission at present, one is 'a representative of the workers. One of the representatives of the corporation of South Shields is a Labour man, and two other corporations between them supply three members of the Labour party on

  1353
  the Tyne Commission. This Commission, framed as it has been framed for the last 80 years, has transformed a stream into a wonderful river. It has done magnificient work, and there has never been any suggestion that the workers' interest has not been given proper attention. I hope that this Bill will not be re-committed, because it contains provisions which are very necessary to the Commission, particularly in helping forward the improvement of the river so that some of the troubles from which the North-East coast are suffering may be lifted.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. THORNE: I am sorry that I was not in the House when the Debate started. I understand that my hon. Friend has been appealing to the Minister of Transport to elect a representative of the miners. It appears to me that the Minister of Transport, who has power to elect two members for life, can help us. If he wants to get over the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis), he might, before he elects these two members, put himself into communication with the organised workers concerned. It does not follow that because the municipalities have the right to elect 16 representatives any of them will be representatives of organised labour. It all depends on the composition of the local authorities. The Minister of Transport could get us out of this difficulty if he would kindly call together the representatives of the organised workers, that is to say, of the colliery workers and the dockers, and of a union like mine, because my organisation has a large number of men working on the quay-side. If the Minister would be good enough to consult the organised workers, it will simplify the matter without very much trouble.
  8.3 p.m.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): This is a private Bill, and I am completely in the hands of Parliament. It has passed through all its stages, and it emerges in a form which leaves me the discretion to appoint two Members to this Commission as and when the present life members either die or resign. Of the two Members whom the Minister of Transport can appoint, one is already a representative of the workers. I shall not bind myself, and I cannot 'bind my successors, to exercise my dis-
  1354
  cretion in any particular manner, but I respond most readily to the appeal which has been made to me, and I shall take note, if it should fall to my lot to appoint another commissioner, of the case which has been presented this evening. I do not think the House can expect me to go further than that. In other cases where I have power to appoint to a harbour or river commission it has been the custom of my predecessors, I understand, to consult with the Minister of Labour as to a suitable representative of the workers in proper cases, and I shall follow that procedure. I trust that that will satisfy hon. Members.

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  8.5 p. m.
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: When I was interrupted by the Private Business I was endeavouring to point out that the constituency which I represent was very much concerned in the Bill before the House. Hereford is grassland rather than arable, and, owing to its distance from large consuming centres, it has been given up to stock raising and beef production in preference to the production of milk. Hereford is the home of the famous Hereford cattle, and I submit to the House that there is no county which has suffered more from the collapse of meat prices than that county. Month after month at the market of Hereford and other local markets there has been a fall of meat and cattle prices. It is not unnatural that my constituents should lose heart. I have to the best of my ability attempted to keep up their spirits. I have pointed out to them that it is the intention of the Minister and of the Government to bring back some prosperity to agriculture, but all in due order —arable first and then grassland, wheat and then meat. The wheat problem has received the attention of the Government

  1355
  and the wheat growers are gratified for the assistance that has been given to them.
  Now the Government have given their attention to meat. In their wisdom, realising that this colossal fall in meat prices has been due to the world unloading its surplus meat into this country, the Government have adopted the policy of a quantitative limitation of imports of meat into this country; hence, the Ottawa Agreements and the agreements with the Argentine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) referred to the two Walters in the Cabinet. I can imagine that in the discussions on these two agreements the Minister of Agriculture who is our Walter and the other Walter were not quite desiring the same thing, and that there were certain antagonisms between them, but I have always backed our Walter in agricultural matters. The House and the Minister know that I would have preferred the more simple and understandable import duties to the rather complicated phrase "quantitative limitation of imports." We are not very materially concerned, however, about what method is adopted so long as the method brings the results that are required, namely, an improvement in the price to the British producer. The application of quotas has been tried, but we have seen this fall in prices month after month, and our people have suffered keen disappointment, and I know that the Minister has too. Our people were losing confidence in the Minister, but I was not. I recognised that he was a man who translated his words into deeds; and you test a man by his acts. not by his words. My confidence in the Minister was maintained, and to-day, owing to this Bill, my confidence has been justified.
  In his speech on the Financial Resolution, the Minister rightly said that he had to bear in mind three alternative solutions of this problem. One was a drastic limitation of imports, which he recognised would cause considerable trouble in the Dominions. Another objection which he did not mention was that if he applied such a drastic limitation of imports as would be necessary to raise the prices of the British produce, it might increase the cost of living. The second course was by agreement to place
  1356
  a levy on imported meat, the proceeds of the levy being used to assist the home producer. The third course was a moderate restriction of imports coupled with the levy, the latter to be used to supplement the price received by the home producer. The Minister has accepted the third course, and I want to express my gratitude to him for having done that. For 2½ years, ever since the National Government came into office, I have advocated a policy of a moderate duty upon meat. Two years ago I moved an Amendment to take meat out of the Free List in the Import Duties Act and to make it subject to a 10 per cent. duty. I received the reply from the President of the Board of Trade that, if my Amendment were carried, it would mean a tax upon meat and would raise the price of meat and would be harmful to the industrial part of the country.
  Since that time a great deal of water has flowed under London Bridge. The Government have been able to gain knowledge by experience. Conditions have altered, and since that time there has been such a colossal fall in meat prices that the policy of the Government to-day is to raise the wholesale price of meat, in the interests not only of the British producer, but of the Empire producer. When a few months ago I again suggested that an import duty should be placed upon foreign meat, I had the reply that it would not do what I wanted, and would not raise the wholesale price of meat. Two years ago they could not accept an import duty on meat, because it would raise the price of meat. A few months ago they could not accept it because it would not raise the price of meat. What was I to think? I had to accept it, but I still kept on advocating my policy of an import duty, and to-day that has more or less been accepted.
  I can realise what has happened in the conversation between the two Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade, our Walter and the other Walter. The other Walter said to our Walter: "I made a mistake when I told that fellow Shepperson that an import duty on foreign meat would raise the price. We have seen by our experience in Ireland that it does not raise the price." I can hear our Walter saying to the other Walter: "Under those conditions, will you not have a small import duty placed upon meat,

  1357
  which will create a fund from which I can help the distressed home producer of meat?" The other Walter replied: "Good, I will agree to it, but for the sake of old times, for the sake of past events, cannot we call that import duty by another name? Would it not be helpful if we could call it a levy?" Our Walter replied: "I do not mind by what name you call it so long as we can have the fruits of the levy." That course has been agreed upon, and the two Walters, who were at one time in opposition, are now shaking each other by the hand, and we of the agricultural community are shaking the hands of both of them in gratitude for what they have given to us.
  The Minister has brought forward the policy of a levy but it cannot be applied until the Dominions and the Argentine have agreed to its application, and during the waiting period we are having this Bill as an emergency Measures What is going to happen if there is no successful termination of the conversations between the Dominions and this country? I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that in his policy of quantitative limitation of imports, restricting the imports from foreign countries, he raises the price not merely of the meat of the home producer but the price of the meat of the foreign importer, he gives a present by his policy to the foreign importer sending his meat into this country. That gift is made to the importer of meat into this country. If those importers refuse to submit to the levy which the right hon. Gentleman desires, I respectfully suggest that he should no longer make a present to the importers of meat into this country but that he should apply such a levy, which can be raised or lowered according to circumstances, as to make a present not to the foreign importer but to the home producer of meat.
  In making this suggestion I am at a disadvantage. I am, unfortunately, possessed of simple rural intelligence. I am entirely untrained in high finance, but to my rural mind I have never been able to understand why we are better off by giving than by receiving. I have always understood that it is more blessed to give than to receive, but I thought that that was a moral idea and not a financial one. I have always failed to understand why if, for instance, by quantitative regulations we make a present of £500 to a Dutchman and the
  1358
  Dutchman then buys from us a motor car, we should thank that Dutchman for
  the service he has rendered to this country in buying a motor car from us with the £500 that we have given to him. It seems to me that the Dutchman has gat the best of the bargain. He gets a motor car that he has not possessed before and we have had the trouble of paying for it. If the acceptance of a gift of a motor car is to be regarded as a service rendered to our country, then I will serve my country as well as any Dutchman. I am prepared to receive a motor car every year from the Government, and I feel confident that many other hon. Members would be glad to serve their country in a similar way.
  I suggest to the Minister that he should consider very seriously how best to work the levy system. The one outstanding successful Measure passed by the present Government has been the Wheat Act. The application of quantitative limitation of imports has not been successful. I would suggest that in regard to meat my right hon. Friend should adopt more and more the levy principle as applied in the Wheat Act and less and less the quantitative limitation of imports. If the Dominions and the Argentine cannot come to an agreement with us because it is contrary to their trade agreements to have a levy, I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to have an internal levy, exactly as under
  the Wheat Act, upon not only imported meat but meat produced in this country and from that fund to give the British producer of meat a guaranteed figure, which is done to wheat producers under the Wheat Act. As meat producers we are not concerned as to the quantities of meat imported or the price. What we are concerned about is that we should have such a return for the meat which we produce as is adequate for the work that we have put into it. If the placing of a levy on imported meat is a success I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should go further and apply it to manufactured milk products which are imported, and later on to eggs which come into the country. As an agriculturist I express my gratitude to the Minister for the energetic action that he has taken and for having converted into acts the words that he used when he promised to help the agricultural industry. I support

  1359
  the Bill as an emergency Measure, and trust that when the right hon. Gentleman introduces his long-term policy he will meet with a success which will earn the gratitude of the agricultural community.
  8.25 p.m.
  Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: I support the Second Reading of the Bill because I feel it is the duty of the Government to try and balance out every branch of the agricultural industry so that there will be one successful whole. The object of the policy of the Government is to bring success to the rural areas, and they are now making an honest attempt to retrieve the livestock industry and provide more employment. I come from an arable and a horticultural district, and I support the Bill because I believe every attempt should be made to bring prosperity to every branch of agriculture. The means test has been mentioned during the Debate. It has been said that if you are going to give a subsidy farmers should have a means test. I contend that the farmer has a. means test. He has the Income Tax; that is a means test. He has another means test, the weather; and still another, the diseases to which plants and animals are subject. All these are among the difficulties which the farmer and his worker have to contend with. He has still another means test. 1 know farmers and their families who have worked their holding for years and never made any money. We have been told that we have neglected the agricultural worker, but it is quite plain that if the agricultural worker's position is to be improved that prosperity must first come to the industry. The question of an increase in spending power has been mentioned. In 1931 there was a financial crisis, the spending power of the people was in jeopardy. The National Government have done their best to retrieve that spending power, to stabilise finance, and in so doing have averted a great disaster.
  The subsidy, in my opinion, should be confined to animals not exceeding 2½ years of age. I say that because we want a quicker turnover in agriculture. The great fault of agriculture is that it is a slow turnover. The object of the Government is to get a quicker turnover. This is also important because in these days there is a demand for a smaller joint, it is not the large joint that is
  1360
  wanted. The Bill will help to create the smaller joint. I go further, I would limit the subsidy to cattle which are reared and fed at home. The Bill will bring another advantage, it will increase the number of cattle on the land and increase the consumption of more home-grown products. To-day it is impossible to find a market for hay; the Bill will find additional markets for it. It will also increase the supplies of farmyard manure, which is still the best fertiliser in spite of all the artificial manures which have been produced.
  I agree that any State grant should be given on condition that the industry organises itself and becomes efficient. I maintain that the Bill provides in Clause 4 for organisation, because when the cattle committee is set up its duty is to organise and regulate. Surely that should be a sufficient guarantee that under the Bill we are going to have organisation and regulation. I do not agree with waiting; it is disastrous. Many of us are getting impatient about the poultry industry and are waiting for the report so that the poultry industry can organise and regulate the distribution of its products. In these days we hear much about the preservation of rural England and its beauties, and I am sure the House will agree with me that there is nothing more beautiful in our countryside than the herds of British cattle. What is there more beautiful than a herd of Herefords, or a herd of Friesians or Shorthorns, among the green pastures. These are the beauties which we should try to maintain in our rural districts. The Bill I say is worthy of support not only because it promotes the welfare of agriculture but also because it encourages the preservation of the beauties of our countryside.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. PALING: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir T. Rosbotham), like many other speakers, has objected to the reference to the means test and suggests that it is not fair to say that farmers have no means test. The hon. Member says that they have the Income Tax. Suppose I accept that. If he will take the present means test applied to the unemployed who are receiving transitional benefit and substitute the means test of the Income Tax, I am sure that the unemployed would be pleased. They would not grumble like the farmers.
  Sir T. ROSBOTHAM: I am in sympathy with the unemployed and I think that the policy of the present Government has tended to find work for more unemployed.
  Mr. PALING: The fact that more people are now being employed is not due to the policy of the Government but to the fact that we went off the gold standard. When we were on the gold standard the number of unemployed went up, when we came off the gold standard the number came down. Many hon. Members during the Debate have talked about a, prosperous industry. I am wondering whether we are to have a new principle, that a prosperous industry is a subsidised industry; that if an industry like farming or cattle raising is half bankrupt and has to have a subsidy of £3,000,000, to be continued as a levy for ever, or at least for an indeterminate period, in order to bring prosperity to the industry, that you are to call it an economically prosperous industry Is that the new definition of a prosperous industry? One hon. Member a supporter of the Government took quite a different line. There are shipping, mining, steel and cotton and wool, all in a desperate economic plight, much worse than the cattle industry finds itself in at the present moment. But they have not got subsidies.
  It is true that the steel industry has an import duty for which it asked, but the mining industry has not got one. We had a £25,000,000 subsidy in 1925, for which we did not ask. We had asked For very different treatment, and after the subsidy had been spent what then? We were told, "You must be put upon an economic basis; you must cut your losses." We got an eight hours day; our wages were put at a minimum, where they have remained ever since. Shipping has just got a subsidy, but wool and cotton and all the rest of the industries have got nothing. It was one of the Government supporters who prophesied that this subsidy instead of bringing prosperity to farming would in the long run bring ruination. I do not know whether it will or not. I carry my mind back to 1922, when I first came to the House. The persistent cry of our political opponents then was, "Keep your hands off industry. Let industry alone. We can manage our own business
  1362
  without you." What a tremendous change to-day. The most dominant feature of this House is the constant pressure, day after day and week after week, to compel the Government to give financial help of some description to industries which it is said are half bankrupt. The cry of our opponents now is, "Let industry belong to us. If we make a profit it is ours, but if we make a loss we ask the Government to make it up to us."
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) said just now, "After wheat we said meat." Every day there are one or two hon. Members, very insistent, who are putting pressure on the Government in connection with poultry and eggs. When the pressure reaches a certain point the Minister gives way and the Members get what they want. The hon. Member is very nice about the whole business. He does not now say, "The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture," but "Our Walter." That is understandable. Hon. Members can afford to be friendly with the Minister. But the Minister is a bit afraid. If the people on whom it is intended to put a levy do not agree, it is suggested that the Minister should do something else very drastic to them, that he should put a duty on and give it to the people in the livestock industry. So that if at the end of the seven months period of the subsidy the thing that is visualised by the Minister does not happen hon. Members advise him what to do in order that the subsidy may continue.
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I am sure the hon. Member does not desire to misrepresent me. My point was that if the Dominions and the Argentine, under the various agreements made with them at Ottawa and elsewhere, do not consent to a levy on the importation of their goods, I suggested that we could get over that difficulty by an internal levy placed upon all meat produced, both British and imported, exactly similar to the levy that is put on under the Wheat Act, and that thus a fund could be built up to give assistance to the home producer of meat.
  Mr. PALING: The hon. Member's policy is that if after the lapse of seven months the scheme of the Minister does not succeed, and we cannot get the money from the foreigner, we shall make the home consumer pay. In other words the

  1363
  hon. Member does not care where the money comes from so long as it comes and is continued.
  Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I apologise for interrupting again. A friend of the hon. Member has stated that meat is being sold to-day at ls. 4d. a pound when the producer is getting only seven-pence. There is ample margin between the seven-pence and the ls. 4d. for that penny levy to be paid without raising in the least the price paid for meat by the consumer.
  Mr. PALING: If there is an ample margin why does not the Minister follow the policy of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) instead of the present policy? While hon. Members on the Government side may feel happy about the present state of things and the ease with which they are getting this money, I suggest to them that the public is getting a bit disturbed. Even newspapers which always subscribe to the policy of the Tory party are beginning to be disturbed as to whether this continuous subsidising is not likely to have a very bad reaction in a very short time on the public, and whether in the endeavour to get all they can out of the National Government the farmers may not smash the whole business. I have tried to prepare a list of the things that have been done for agriculture. The more there is given to agriculture the more agriculture asks for. Rates were wiped off agricultural land altogether. It was suggested at the time that that would make all the difference between a prosperous and an unprosperous industry. But it did not make much difference to the demands of the farmers who still kept asking for more. After rates there was the beet-sugar scheme, then schemes dealing with hops and bacon—which sent up the price of bacon—then £5,000,000 a year for wheat; then the question of the subsidy for milk, and now there is meat, and as an hon. Member opposite said, they are asking, "What next?"
  Where is it all to stop? Does the Minister think that the urban consumer of all these things is going to sit quietly by and calmly pay all this money? There was an hon. Member who was most frank about it and who alarmed the Minister by his frankness. He said it was "the siller," the money, and he added, "This is only a token payment." He is expect-
  1364
  ing something very much bigger and better and more continuous in the future. We want to see a prosperous agriculture. We admit that it is one of the biggest of our industries. We admit that you cannot have a prosperous country without a prosperous agriculture. I would like to see the industry extended and more men employed in it but we suggest that the method proposed by the Government is the wrong method and that it will probably end in destroying all the hopes which hon. Members opposite have of getting a prosperous agriculture in the near future.
  I wish to put one or two points to the Minister arising out of what has been said this evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said that if imports went down the meat industry would expand. Is it the policy of this subsidy and of what may follow, not only to make the industry prosperous at the present level of meat production, but also to expand that production in the future? My point is this: We are supposed to be suffering from over-production. If this policy results in an extension of the industry and in more people producing meat, will it not defeat itself The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) in an excellent maiden speech said that lots of people had gone out of stockraising into milk-producing, because milk-producing at the time was more prosperous and he suggested the possibility that the result of this subsidy would be to attract those people back into beef-producing from milk-producing. When those people turned from beef-producing to milk-producing the result was that they produce a surplus of milk. Now apparently they are to be attracted back to beef-producing and they will produce another surplus, this time a surplus of beef. I wish to ask the Minister whether he has visualised all these possibilities and whether he had them in mind when he proposed this subsidy.
  My last point is this. Even if it is now too late to appeal to the Government to alter the proposals now before the House I hope that in their long-term policy they are not going to stick to the principle which the Minister is laying down in this Bill. To put upon imported meat, which is mainly eaten by the poorer people, an increase of at least one penny per lb. for the purpose of bringing in

  1365
  this money is the wrong method to pursue. It is not pair and I cannot help feeling that the arguments on this point which have been put forward from these benches, have had some effect on some hon. Members opposite. I am sure those hon. Members would not willingly impose a burden on the poorest section of the community in order to help themselves and I am sure that many of the harmers to-day do not stand in need of any such help. There may be others who need assistance but I suggest that the method proposed here is based on a vicious principle. If this matter is put to the electorate, if the people get to know that after all that has already been done for farming they are expected to pay more, out of the miserably low wages which they receive to-day, for meat which at present they can hardly afford; if they know that they are expected to do this in order to subsidise English meat, it will have a disastrous effect upon hon. Members themselves when they go to the country to seek the sufferage of the electors. If the Minister cannot see his way to withdraw the Bill, I hope he will at least give the House a promise that he does not propose to continue this principle in any future policy on which the Government may decide.
  8.50 p.m.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY:
  I rise in company with other Members who represent constituencies where the livestock industry is carried on, to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Minister, for the tireless manner in which he has worked to put this branch of farming on its feet again. It seems but a short time since I was standing here making my maiden speech in support of his effort to improve the then serious situation which was confronting the livestock farmers. The action which he took then and the action which he took at a later date, were unfortunately not attended by the results which we all desired. The dice have been loaded against my right hon. Friend. Unforeseen factors over which he had no control, such as the spell of exceptionally hot weather which has led to an enormous decline in meat consumption, have proved too strong for him, but my right hon. Friend is not yet beaten. He has shown a dogged resolution not to chuck up the sponge—a spirit of determination which, I am sure, must compel the admiration
  1366
  even of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are his political opponents and which inspires the utmost confidence in a humble back-bencher like myself, who has been sent here to see that, at least in this Parliament., the agricultural community gets a square deal.
  We know now that when a matter is said to be receiving the earnest and careful consideration of the Minister of Agriculture that does not mean that the matter in question will be pigeon-holed or sidetracked. We know that it means that action will be taken. On this occasion my right hon. Friend has taken the only course which was open to him. At this moment he is unable to put into operation any long term policy, nor do I altogether regret the fact. Here we have a branch of agriculture which is the keystone and foundation of the whole industry. One false step here, one move in the wrong direction might spell disaster. When the taxpayer realises this fact I am sure he will not "grouse" at having to pay up for two years and thus give time to my right hon. Friend—who, through his own keen desire to bring prosperity to all branches of agriculture, has been very hard worked of late—to think over and sleep upon any permanent policy which is contemplated for the ultimate salvation of the industry. What is more I ask my right hon. Friend in all seriousness to avail himself of this opportunity of quiet contemplation and any suggestions or criticisms or indications of possible dangers which I may make are made with a genuine desire to see that the very best and nothing but the best is done for all concerned in this industry.
  I am as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite to see an improvement in the conditions of the agricultural labourer. In fact I am even more anxious than the majority of them in that respect, because I depend for my continuance here upon the support of agricultural labourers, unlike a great many of them. Where I differ from them is as to the means by which the agricultural labourer can best be assisted—under the system of agriculture practised in England to-clay. I have no doubt that many hon. Members opposite wish to alter the present system of farming practised in this country. They would like to see the State supplanting the farmer and the landowner. With those hon. Gentlemen I have at least this

  1367
  much in common. I realise like them that if you want to help farming the only way to do it is to put money into the industry at the top. Where we part company is that I maintain that the inefficiency and incompetence of the Whitehall farmers would be so great that the money going in at the top would have considerably less chance of filtering through to the pockets of the farm labourers than it has under the present system. To-day we have a system under which experienced farmers born and bred to the job run the show and under which the labourers are assured of a fair share of any benefits accruing to the industry through the working of the Wages Board which was set up to see after their interests.
  Any one who is taking this Debate seriously and trying to be helpful knows that the only way to help this branch of farming, or any other branch, is to put money into the industry. This can be done in two ways, either from the taxpayers' pocket by means of a subsidy, or else, I will say, from the consumers' pocket; and I hope hon. Members opposite will credit me with courage for saying so. This can be done by either quotas, tariffs or import boards, as favoured by hon. Members opposite. If we genuinely desire to help livestock farming, it cannot be done without its costing somebody something. We cannot have the best of both worlds, and unless we are prepared to face up to this fact nothing of any great use is likely to be done. If the consuming public think, with me, that it is in the best interests of this country to maintain a virile population on the land, making a decent living out of the land, they must be prepared to make some small sacrifice towards this end. At least at the last election they showed their willingness to do so, and the sacrifices which they have made to date have been so well set off by the considerable improvement which has taken place in the agricultural position under the handling of my right hon. Friend, that I am sure he still has the country behind him. This being the case, I am only concerned at the moment to see that we put into operation the best long-term policy possible for the industry.
  I heartily support my right hon. Friend's Measure for making a temporary
  1368
  grant or subsidy to the industry. He cannot at this stage do otherwise. No one would wish to see a subsidy used as a permanent long-term policy. It is unreliable, and the most extravagant form of assistance. Once started, it is hard to give up. This leaves us with three alternative forms of assistance, either quota, levy or tariff. My right hon. Friend at the moment seems to be wooing a combination of the two, a quota-cum-levy policy. I view this flirtation with some slight apprehension. I may be old fashioned, and I am afraid I am already accounted by a near relative of mine by marriage among those politicians in this House whom I once heard her refer to as "those juvenile Rip Van Winkles." But I do not consider that in the long run it will be for the benefit of the livestock industry to be subjected to the control, rationalisation and complicated administration which a levy system must inevitably involve. Livestock farming is the branch of agriculture which is least suited for marketing control. Meat is nowhere near being such a marketable commodity as wheat or potatoes. It cannot be stored without losing the all important advantage that it has over foreign meat, and that is its freshness; and the preservation of this advantage is, to my mind, worth more to British agriculture than any marketing board or any levy.
  The difficulties of administering a deficiency payment, or payment of any kind, on a live weight basis, as was seen in the War, are enormous. We all know, as has already been stated in this House this afternoon, ways of doctoring live animals so as to improve their appearance, increase their weight and hide any other defects. The possibility of evasion and fraud might lead to the payment being made on a dead weight basis. Once we are on a dead weight basis I maintain that we shall lose this valuable quality of freshness. A payment on a dead weight basis, as already anticipated, necessitates the setting up of abattoirs and central slaughter-houses throughout the country. Once a farmer is driven to a central slaughter-house he is automatically placed in the hands of the butchers. I do not want to say anything against butchers, except that I should consider them extremely poor business men indeed if they did not take full advantage of the all-powerful position in

  1369
  which they would then find themselves. Once an animal is dead you cannot walk it round another market if you do not like the price offered. If the farmer will not accept the price the meat will go into cold storage, and the public will be given stored meat, which will be neither in the best interests of the public or the farmer.
  I come to the other form of assistance, and that is a tariff. I realise that at the moment my right hon. Friend is not in a position to impose a tariff. He has, nevertheless, two years' grace before deciding upon a long-term policy, and I ask him in all seriousness not altogether to exclude from his mind this means of assistance. There is a very good case to be made out for a tariff. It is only fair that the livestock farming industry should have some measure of Protection in a protected world and in a country where every branch of industry to-day has some form of protection, and where there is a more or less protected wage market. It can be made effective in two years' time if the Cabinet and the Government intend it to be so. It has the advantage, to my mind, over quotas in that it is fair to importers into this country. I cannot help feeling that, in the long run, quotas are not likely to lead to better feelings throughout the Empire. Some friction must arise when the time comes for deciding the exact proportion of quota to be allotted among the countries forming the Empire. With a preferential tariff all parts of the Empire would be treated fairly, and could enter into healthy competition for our markets. Moreover, the public would have the certainty of a fresh meat supply, and we should be leaving the farmer the one last chance of having a little fun and a mild gamble in managing his own affairs at market.
  The agricultural shows going on throughout the country show what a tremendous spirit and enterprise there is still left in the industry, in spite of the terrible time it has been through. If we give the livestock farming industry, when the time is opportune, a tariff sufficient to ensure a reasonable price, I am certain the industry will soon buck up. The Minister of Agriculture will then have done all that a great many farmers in this country ask him to do, and if the livestock farmer cannot carry on with a reasonable measure of Protection it
  1370
  will be better for himself and the country if he "chucks it up" and devotes his attention to some other form of activity. I make these suggestions in the friendliest spirit and, as I said before, with a real desire to see that, when the time comes, the best long-term policy is decided upon. I also make them because I think it is only right that one who is deeply concerned with the ultimate welfare of the livestock industry should fearlessly voice any dangers he may see ahead. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise once more ray gratitude to my right hon. Friend for the immediate relief which he has given, and the resolute way in which he is tackling the problem. Unlike his great national hero, Robert Bruce, he has nothing to learn from the spider, and I sincerely trust that his determination will meet with the success which it deserves.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I have seen to-day the best exhibition of worshipping at the shrine of the golden calf that I have ever seen in my life. The worshippers have come from all quarters, and they have been very frank about it. An hon. Member from one of the Scottish constituencies admitted this afternoon that so far as he was concerned it did not matter where the money came from or how it came, so long as he got it in his hands, and plenty of it, and he was quite sure that the Minister of Agriculture was the man who could find it for him. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) is not here. I suppose he wanted a bit of something to eat. [An HON, MEMBER: "Beef!"] He will get some English beef, not like the foreign that I have had for some time. He stated that he was a simple, rural, intelligent person, who wanted to speak the truth. He wanted to say that they had had the subsidy for wheat. I looked up some figures while he was speaking, and I found that for 1932–33 the wheat subsidy was £4,510,000—not bad—and that the subsidy for milk will be £4,650,000; the subsidy for sugar since I have been in the House has been £3,500,000; and this afternoon's subsidy is to be £3,000,000 for beef. The hon. Member for Leominster said he was not bothered about the method, so long as he got the spoils.

  1371
  I remember in March of this year, that the "Yorkshire Post," when it was putting up a fight against the Labour party in the West Riding County Council election said that the Labour policy which we had put forward was "rank bribery," and that we were trying to bribe the unemployed people and those who were receiving out-relief. I wish the people of the West Riding could have seen the exhibition in this House during the last month or so. If the Labour policy were "rank bribery" I call this "double-dyed bribery," so far as the Government are concerned, in regard to their supporters. The Government are making an attempt to bribe landowners and farmers, and everybody so far as the landed interest is concerned. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir T. Rosbotham) seems to be very much hurt. I think he must have a very tender conscience. I do not know him yet, but he seems to feel, with a good many of his colleagues, that the farmers should be put on a means test. Why should the farmers not be put on the means test in the same way as the 2,000,000 unemployed workers who are on it and who are put upon a very severe grid?
  I am speaking of something that I know, and not of something that I have read in a book. I have served upon public assistance committees since November, 1931. If the farmers were subjected to the scrutiny which the unemployed get when going on to transitional payments, not many farmers would get the subsidy. [Laughter.] Somebody laughs. Why should not the income of the farmers be taken into 'account, including their interest from investments other than in their land, and the income coming into their homes, including the income of some of the sons who may be living there, some of the grandchildren, or the wooden-legged relatives, such as have been taken into account in regard to aplying the means test to unemployed people 4 I would ask them, "Why should there be a means test for your brothers end sisters, and no means test for you?" I am satisfied that if a means test were put into operation by the Minister of Agriculture for the farming community, exceptionally few farmers would fall into the category of needing assistance.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby),
  1372
  speaking of the subsidy, said that the money ought to come in at the top. That is not the policy of the Minister of Agriculture. The money is not coming in at the top, but at the bottom. The reason it has not come-in at the bottom in the past is that the wages of the industrial workers have been reduced by many millions of pounds in a year. Last Monday night I tried to put across the Floor of the House the fact that there is not a collier in the British Islands who eats foreign meat because he likes it. He would sooner have the good British beef steak any day than two foreign beef steaks. He relishes English beef if he can get it, but, if the present proposal be adopted, he will not have the chance. I know what I am talking about. When I got home last week-end I had an instance showing how badly industry is smitten. I had pay notes put into my hand. I have one in my pocket of a man who has nine children under school age, and who came home last week from the pit with 5s. 5d. That is not a laughing matter. Hon. Members here may laugh about it, but that chap did not laugh, nor did his wife when she had that money put into her hands. She had hardly received it five minutes before the rent man was knocking at the door. She had to say to him, "I cannot give you any this week." These are the folk who would like to have some British beef. They cannot have it because wages are down. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford says that we want to feed the money in from the top. It comes in, and when it arrives at Whitehall—
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: The hon. Member must have misunderstood what I said. I was pointing out that the only way under the present system that the money could get to the bottom was from the top. The only man who pays wages in agriculture is the farmer, and until the farmer has made the money it is impossible for the wages to be paid.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I understand that, but the person who has to eat the beef is the consumer and not the farmer. The farmer wants to sell it to someone who has the wages wherewith to buy it. The workers have not the wages at the present time. If the money comes in at the top, it has to filter through to the bottom. The producer pays every time, or, as we

  1373
  say in the mining industry, "It all comes from the pit point." The consumer will be hit in this matter. The hon. Member from a Scottish constituency whom I mentioned, the hon. Member for Leominster and the hon. Member for Ormskirk all say that they want to sell the beef. We are trying to emphasise the fact that you cannot sell it if there is no money with which to buy it.
  The other point of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford is that people will have to have foreign meat if British meat goes into cold storage. Why is British meat going into cold storage? Because people cannot afford to buy it. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) said that some people in his constituency would have to go without beef twice a week. Some of my folk go without it six times a week, and they do not get much of it on Sunday. They go without, and they work hard. I am more than ever convinced that I am right, coming from an industrial constituency, in opposing this Bill, by the fact of the support that it is getting from all angles, and we shall go into the Lobby against it. Someone said something about votes. I make no bones about repeating the statement that, if a by-election occurred in an industrial urban centre and it was fought on nothing but this Beef Bill, we should win it hands down; and, if no by-election is fought upon it, when a general election comes, if this Bill is on the Statute Book, instead of hindering us it will give us 100 seats at the next election.
  9.16 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: I should like to say a few words about this Bill from the point of view of one who represents an industrial centre rather than from the point of view of agriculture. The last speaker and one or two others seem to take the view that those who represent industrial centres should be opposed to this Measure, but I cannot help thinking that they are profoundly mistaken. It seems to me that the one vital thing for British industry at the moment is a free market where the goods it produces can be sold. It becomes increasingly difficult week by week and month by month to sell our goods overseas. Only too often, when by skill and energy and enterprise our manufacturers have built up a line of goods for export to a certain country,
  1374
  they find that, as soon as they, have got it established, it is knocked out by some change in currency, some decrease in quotas, or some increase in duties. In the home market there are no troubles of that sort; there are no quotas or alterations of currency; and it has become increasingly clear during the last year to everyone engaged in industry that the home market is now of more vital importance to our industries than ever it has been before. If that be the case, surely it is in the interest of all those engaged in industry to do everything they can to strengthen the home market and build up its purchasing power. The industrial centres of this country now find themselves surrounded by a large agricultural community who are facing bankruptcy. Many farmers are entirely in the hands of the banks; they are unable to spend money or purchase goods; if nothing is done to help their industry, they will find themselves faced with bankruptcy. That means that a large proportion of our home market is useless as regards the sale of their goods by industrial concerns. If some measure of prosperity could be restored to this branch of agriculture, which has been hit so hardly, it would strengthen and build up a portion of our most valuable market, namely, the home market.
  If money is provided for that purpose, where will it be spent? It will be spent in the local towns, in our own industries —in the purchase of boots from my own constituency, of woollens from Yorkshire, of cottons from Lancashire, goods which cannot now be bought by that portion of the community, because they are practically speaking down and out. Surely it is sound on the part of the big industrial centres to support a policy of that sort. I was interested to hear, in an excellent maiden speech earlier in the Debate, the statement that many of the sons of agricultural labourers on the grazing farms are looking for other jobs and going out of the industry in which they have been brought up, and for which they are well fitted. The position is even worse than that. This year, perhaps for the first time in the history of this island, the sons of farmers and graziers themselves, whose fathers and grandfathers have been bred and born in the grazing industry, have been giving up the one job for which they were pre-eminently fitted, and looking for other openings, probably flooding an already overstocked

  1375
  market in other directions. Where are you going to find people to take their place? The art of grazing beef or managing grassland is not learned in a short time. These men have been born and bred to the job, and it is a job that they like. I welcome this Bill because it will bring back some measure of prosperity to the industry and put it on its feet, but I welcome it even more because I think it will restore to the graziers a feeling of confidence that the Government mean to see that they get fair play, and I hope that it will have the effect of checking this tendency of the sons of graziers to look for other jobs. I am sure that that will be in the interest of the country.
  I would ask those who represent industrial areas to take a broad and long view of the position, bearing in mind the fact that the problem which is always worrying the leaders of our industries is where to find markets for their goods. It is in the interest of all those engaged in industry to do everything they can to increase and strengthen the market where their goods can be sold, rather than allow a great portion of their most valuable market to be so wiped out that it will not be possible to re-establish its purchasing capacity for many years to come. When we are finding it increasingly difficult to sell our goods overseas, we should do everything we possibly can to strengthen and enlarge the one really valuable market in which we have the advantage over everyone else, namely, our own home market. I hope that representatives of industrial constituencies will support the Bill, and I think that those who oppose it are doing a disservice to the industries in those areas which they represent.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. EVERARD: I was glad to hear the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller), because it was rather depressing to me to hear Members representing the towns trying to counteract all the good that has been done in the last few years in bringing the country and the town closer together. I agree with every word that my hon. and gallant Friend has said. This is a matter which not only affects people who live in the country, but affects equally, and pos
  1376
  sibly even more, those who derive their livelihood from the towns. It is to the greatest industry of all, the industry employing the largest number of people in this country, that they must look to a large extent for a market for their manufactured goods. I think that the view expressed by hon. Members opposite is au extremely short-sighted view, and I cannot believe that it really represents the view of the ordinary people who reside in the cities. I am also rather surprised to see the official Opposition Amendment, because, if hon. Members opposite had any knowledge at all of the parlous position of the grazing industry all over the country at the present time, they would know that there is no possible question of a cure being found for it in reorganisation, but that it is almost a matter of days whether the industry can continue through the next year or not.
  I was going to say to my right hon. Friend, to whom we are so much indebted for what he has done to bring this Bill forward, that I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mrs. Copeland) said on Monday, that if this Measure is not pressed forward, or, at any rate, if measures are not taken immediately to prevent imports from New Zealand and other Dominions to some extent, I fear very much that the good that we expect even from this Measure may come to nought. As is well known, this will be a very early season for marketing cattle. It may be that before this Bill can come into operation the market will be so glutted with cattle that the present arrangement of £3 per head will be of no use at all to the farmers in my neighbourhood. I can speak for my own district in the Midlands that the average losses sustained by the farmers in the production of cattle are well over £3 a head, and that it would not, be overstating the case to say that the loss is something over £5 or £6 a head. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will not run away with the idea that this Bill is largely going to make cattle-breeding a prosperous industry. It may allow it just temporarily to struggle through until my right hon. Friend the Minister is able to bring forward his other proposals to put it on a permanent basis.
  In conclusion, I think that the Minister has a right, and I expect he will exercise

  1377
  it, to ask the agricultural community themselves to do what they can to assist in the improvement of the selling and slaughtering of cattle. I believe that very much can be done, not by doing away with the small markets, because they are a great asset to this country, but by a better method of marketing, and certainly by a better method of slaughtering. I believe that they themselves could, by a method of their own, quite probably do away with and keep off the market a great deal of the inferior quality of beef which has done so much in the past to run the price down to ruinous levels, and of which we see so much at the present time. It is eight years ago that the Linlithgow Committee reported on this question of marketing, and it is high time that some of the suggestions they put forward should again be considered.
  There is a great deal in the views put forward on both sides of the House to-day, particularly by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), on the difference between the cost of production and the selling price not only of beef but also of a great many other agricultural products. I do not think that anybody necessarily profiteers in this market, but I believe that there is some better method of transport and of conducting other operations that would not only reduce the cost to the producer, but would enable him to get a better price for his goods than that which he is obtaining at the present time. We thank the Minister very sincerely, not only for bringing in this Bill but also for the untiring work, energy and sympathy which he has given to the whole agricultural community since he took office in this country. I may say also, without any wish to flatter him, that there has never been anybody in whom the people, at least in my district in England, have had greater confidence than the present Minister.
  9.29 p.m.
  Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: Those of us who have kept in touch with agricultural conditions have seen during the last two years, with intense sympathy and apprehension, the market for livestock getting steadily worse and worse. We have heard over and over again that the Government, by negotiation and otherwise, were going to see that the tide turned. We have listened at auctions in
  1378
  our own constituencies and over the wireless to the steady fall in prices, month by month, all the time. We remember when the price per live cwt. used to be 60s., and how that price gave place to 50s., and 50s. to 40s. Now, with regard to a considerable variety of beef in a considerable number of markets, the prevailing prices are down in the neighbourhood of 30s. per live cwt. In spite of the prophecies, I believe that it is an undoubted fact that ever since the Ottawa Agreements, which were represented to our farmers as giving them the first claim in the markets, the Dominions the second and foreign countries the third, things have got steadily worse.
  Quite clearly, any Minister finding the position as it is would feel that something must be done. I am sure that my hon. Friends above the Gangway would not deny that if they were in power. No one would seriously contemplate the disappearance of so essential a part of our agriculture as is represented by stock grazing and fattening. Nevertheless, it may disappear unless something is done this winter. To anybody who knows anything about the industry, as my hon. Friends above the Gangway no doubt do, obviously it cannot live any longer on its savings through another bad six months. There are no savings left except in very special conditions in rather special corners of the country there are none in the main stock districts. Farmers, generally speaking, in the districts which I have in mind are not solvent. They are being carried by their bankers, by people who are afraid to call in mortgages, by merchants and by many others. We in this part of the House- have never denied that it might be quite justifiable to take steps of the nature of one or other of the alternative courses that are now before us in circumstances similar to those in which the industry finds itself, namely, the verge of a big measure of reorganisation in certain circumstances.
  I will quote, if I may, what my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said about that subject, so as to make clear a proposition which in this Debate has sometimes had doubt cast upon it. The point is that we are strongly in favour of measures to reorganise our agricultural industry, provided that they

  1379
  comply with certain conditions. We are not opposed to giving help during the time needed for reorganisation if those conditions are complied with. In parenthesis I may say that the measures which we favour and have carefully worked out go a great deal further than marketing reorganisation. Our policy would include taking steps to see that the benefits of improved marketing went to those who had the difficult task of readjusting their methods to the improved marketing, and did not, sooner or later, filter through to landowners in the form of rent as it is bound to do in present circumstances. If I may recall the words of my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Marketing Bill, in 1933, he said:
  "If an industry were engaged in a complete reorganisation of its methods, reestablishing itself in accordance with present day requirements, modernising its plant and changing its methods, and if it could be shown that during the period that the scheme was being put into operation it needed some shelter from destruction by a flood of foreign importations designed to overthrow it meanwhile, we should recognise the justice of such a claim and would be prepared to admit it.
  Any such scheme, however, should observe four conditions."
  —which the right hon. Member gave. They were these:
  "First, it should not be the purpose of the scheme permanently to raise the prices of the commodities above the prices prevailing in the world at large,"
  and the object of reorganisation was to make the industries concerned effective, so that they could produce in competition with the rest of the world.
  "—secondly, that they should not be given any permanent measure of protection which could only conduce to revive inefficiency, but that such a measure as this should be exceptional, temporary and provisional, and should come to an end after a specified period of years; thirdly, that the interests of the consumers should be most carefully safeguarded, and that they should have an important place in the machinery for establishing such a system; fourthly, that there should be specific Parliamentary sanction in each case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1933; cols. 73–4, Vol. 276]
  That lays down the general line, to which we still adhere. I now come to the special circumstances of this case. I have tried to show how grievous is the position on the actual farms, but there are other things that come into consideration. I agree that the main consideration in all
  1380
  these big questions, if you take the long view, is that the customers of agriculture should return to prosperity, and that in the long run none of these artificial methods will have any effect unless that comes about. But, when I am thinking not of the unemployed or impoverished people who cannot afford the meat which undoubtedly they would otherwise be consuming, it is a fact that the habits of feeding are changing among people who can afford, within limits, what they want. Men and women nowadays eat less than they used, and eat a greater variety, and they find it suits them better. They are inclined to eat more fruit and vegetables, and wives are inclined to dislike cooking. When they come into the new council houses, they have only a gas oven which holds a, small joint, which is a factor in the situation, and, rightly or wrongly, families are smaller and the large joint is a very uneconomical proposition for a small family. All that has to be taken into account. Consequently one finds, from the remarkable figures that the Minister gave, that our share of our home market has been steadily going down. We find alongside that, most remarkable figures, which I have not previously had in mind, of the extraordinary increase of importation from some of the Dominions. The hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) gave figures which showed an increase of 77 per cent. between one year and the next. The figures for New Zealand were most amazing-377,000 cwts. of beef in the pre-Ottawa year and 700,000 in the following year and an anticipation of 1,000,000 cwts. in the present year.
  It seems to me that the position at which we have arrived is the fault of the Ottawa policy. I do not want to describe that policy in the extraordinarily strong language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery); at the same time, perhaps my feelings are much the same as his. At Ottawa undoubtedly the Dominions were allowed to think that we could absorb a steadily increasing amount bf their produce. With regard to beef that was not true, and it was not true with regard to other things. We might have been able to absorb the extra amount which they were encouraged to supply if the Government had made a better job of the World Economic Conference. It was, no doubt, their idea that, following on a successful Ottawa Conference, they would

  1381
  have a successful World Economic Conference and they laid enormous stress on the success of it. With that in their mind they, no doubt, gave the Dominions this idea that we should be able to take a steadily expanding amount from them, but from the moment the Government said at the World Economic Conference that they objected to quotas put on by foreign countries against us but that our quotas were different, and that they objected to duties which were unreasonable but, of course, our duties were most reasonable, the World Economic Conference was doomed to failure. From that moment also, of course, as has become increasingly evident in recent months, the Ottawa policy has been a millstone round the Government's neck and the ruin that is now threatening our farmers is directly the Government's fault for having encouraged the Dominions to go in for extra production without securing a restoration of prosperity at home, which alone would make possible our absorption of that extra production.
  There has been a new factor that has come in which is rather important in the case of New Zealand and some of the other Dominions. They have, I believe of set policy, depreciated their currency below ours. That, of course, has helped this enormous growth of exports at low prices with which our farmers, on a higher currency level, cannot compete. I do not know how it is that New Zealand, knowing the number of their stocks, no doubt, from the census, and having made the proviso that they might send an extra 10 per cent. in each of the two years, have increased beyond all proportion— 120 per cent. in the first year and 140 per cent. in the second. Unless their cows have suddenly learned the way of dropping three-year old calves one cannot imagine how the miscalculation occurred, but this depreciation of currency has helped them to export at prices which are really ruin to us without being so hard on them. Also, of course, some of our Dominions, though not in regard to meat, are using subsidies to undercut our producers. We find, for instance, Australian butter being sold here at 9d. a lb. and the same butter being sold in Australia at ls. 6d. We have always asserted that it was justifiable to take steps to prevent an essential home industry being ruined by deliberate subsidy or currency depreciation.
  1382
  What is proposed in the Bill? It may be regarded in two ways. You may regard it legitimately either simply as a subsidy to be borne, like the sugar beet and shipping subsidies, by the taxpayer and never to be recovered, or One may follow the line that the right hon. Gentleman took a day or two ago when he explained that this is a temporary advance necessary because he cannot yet put a tax on beef, but that it is to be repaid to the Treasury as soon as we can arrange such a tax, either with the consent of the Dominions or compulsorily, after the expiry of the period during which we are debarred from putting taxes on meat from the Dominions and from the Argentine. I prefer to take the long view, though it is quite legitimate to take the shorter view, on the principle that the person who wills the means must be regarded as willing the end. I can foresee how, when the tax is proposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain that we are partly committed to the policy of the tax by having passed this Bill and granted this subsidy to be repaid out of the tax. Following the admirable example of the President of the Board of Trade, I am pledged not to vote for taxes on meat, as are a considerable number of Members on that side of the House who sit for borough and city constituencies, as they will be well advised to remind themselves before they give definitive votes on this matter. I see no escape from the conclusion that the consequences of what we are asked to do to-day are meant by the Government to be a tax of a penny a pound on meat with a drawback, no doubt, for the Dominions.
  Unfortunately, I missed the speech of the Minister this afternoon, but I asked one of my hon. Friends, who took notes for me, whether he told the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented even provisionally to regard this as a non-repayable subsidy. That has not been said, and I doubt whether it will be. The position might possibly be different for some of us if the Minister had told us that the tax would only stay on until it had yielded the amount of the subsidy, and that it would then be repealed. I fancy that he did not say that either. I feel certain that, once the Government get a tax put on, they will

  1383
  not be in the least inclined to take it off again. I feel equally certain that once any other Government come in they will take it off, and it is because of that uncertainty and inevitable unsettling of the industry, that I am so much opposed to these definite taxes upon essential articles of food. It seems, therefore, that what is inherent in this Bill is incompatible with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen laid down as the conditions upon which we would agree to help an industry in the process of transition by the reorganisation of its markets. To return to what he said, I believe that it is the intention of the Government, to quote his words, to raise prices permanently above the level of world prices and to give protection permanently, and not in a way which shall be—again to quote his words—exceptional, temporary and provisional, ending after a specified period. That, therefore, goes against the principles which I must, and do, loyally support.
  The Minister, who is always inclined to ask us what our policy is when he is a bit in doubt about his own, may ask me what my alternative would be to meet the present emergency, which I admit ought to be met. I do not like subsidies because they encourage an industry, once it gets them, to go on leaning upon the State and expecting, whenever times are hard, to be helped out again in the same way as it was helped before. I do not want quantitative restrictions because, though the prices go up, the whole gain in prices goes to the exporting country and not to us. And I do not like duties. I think it was Dr. Johnson who, when asked his opinion about the respective demerits of three unpleasant persons, said, "I will not argue to the point of persistency between a louse, a flea and a bug." I feel the same about subsidies, duties and quotas, but, in the circumstances of this case, I think that if I were in the Minister's position, which I am glad I am not, I should try to visualise the matter in this way. He could do it very much better than I could, because he has all the essential figures.
  Take the price of a certain quality of beef at 40s. per live cwt. Take the certainty of the farmers holding back stack through the summer, hoping that something will be done before long, and take
  1384
  the certainty of the shortage of keep for the autumn, and therefore the certainty that they will make every possible effort to dispose of a perfect flood of stock in the early autumn. You will find prices going down, if nothing is done, to 30s. or less. It means, of course, that a lot of cattle will have to be killed without being marketed for food at all. Take the supposition that the Minister intends to take measures to secure prices. I do not know what his price is, and it would have been better if he had told us what he wanted to secure. Suppose it is 45s. on an average during the next seven months of the subsidy period. There is no profit in that, but people can go on without increasing their losses. On this estimate, this may happen. The greater part of the rise in price which he hopes to secure, must be secured by quota restrictions and not by a subsidy. That is a perfectly good point, and one which hon. Members in other parts of the House who are in fairly close touch with the industry have made. The subsidy will be the minor point.
  That being so, is it unfair to our Dominions which have produced such an enormous and wholly unanticipated supply of stock to ask them to make up for the very great gain which they have had in the last two years by a restriction now, which would, at any rate, neutralise the depreciated currency which they have gone in for in order to help the flood of exports to this country? It might mean for them a loss in supplies, but, as we have seen in the case Danish bacon, they would get higher prices, and it seems that they ought to be able for a few months to use the extra money, as the Danes have done with regard to bacon, to compensate for the decreased supply. If after that the Government bring before the House proposals for a duty upon meant, we shall know where we are and be able to do our best to meet it. I object to this duty being brought in, and to the fact that we are being more or less committed to it by a side wind. therefore, I should have avoided that at this time without committing myself, if I had been Minister, as to what I might think it necessary to do in future.
  Mr. ELLIOT: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is in favour at present of a severer quota restriction, and that if that were put be-

  1385
  fore the Dominions and they did not agree to it he would be willing to meet me on the point of putting on a duty.
  Sir F. ACLAND: No, I am afraid I cannot have made myself clear. Surely, the Minister is free now, whether the Dominions agree or not, to put on quota restrictions, or at any rate, he is free to put on a duty. Therefore, I am afraid, whether they agreed or not, knowing that I had to put a very severe quota upon the Dominions anyway, I should do the whole thing by quota and not partly by quota and partly by subsidy. There is this further point about the subsidy. Farmers are intensely nervous about pending proposals for meat re-organisation. They know that it means the abolition of the small markets in which all their business is done and it may mean, if we are to get the Dominions to agree to any system of quotas, that we may have to have a quota here, too. After the engagements of the Ottawa period, it will be a great strain upon the Empire for us to make them mark time permanently while we again expand. A quota means a definite fixed quantity of stock being required from each farmer, which is really an impossible thing in agriculture. You cannot treat the farmer like a factory. Farmers are very much afraid. In these circumstances a subsidy may defeat its own object. Farmers will be inclined to concentrate upon every head of stock during the early portion of the subsidy period in order to be sure that the £3,000,000 will not be exhausted until they have obtained their share of it, and, if prices accordingly go down, the effect of the subsidy may be neutralised. For these reasons, we cannot support the means of meeting the situation which the Minister is proposing in this Bill.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: I am sure that agricultural Members in this House will agree that they have had more than a fair share of the time of the House during the last fortnight in dealing with agricultural problems. On Monday of last week we had a full day on the Minister's Vote, and on Monday of this week we had a day on the Financial Resolution dealing with these proposals, to-day we are discussing the Bill, and I understand that on Monday and Tuesday of next week agriculture is again to be discussed in this House. Out of two or three
  1386
  Parliamentary weeks, five days are being set aside for agricultural questions. I am afraid that, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), I cannot speak as an agriculturist. In common with most of my hon. Friends who have spoken from these benches, I am one of the 93 per cent. of people who are consumers of the agricultural products produced and imported into this country, and I think it is necessary that the point of view of the consumer should be put with force to the agriculturist. Representatives of industrial districts should be as persistent in advocating the claims of those industries and constituencies as the agriculturists are in pressing the claims of agriculture, and as they have been, I can almost say, for the 12 years that I have had the honour to sit in this House.
  It has been very interesting to hear some of the speeches delivered, not only this afternoon but also on Monday. Right hon. Members whom I have heard strongly opposing a subsidy have openly advocated a subsidy for the purpose of assisting the agricultural industry. I feel that, if such a strong claim can be made for the subsidy for agriculture, there are many other industries which would benefit to a very much greater extent by a subsidy of the same kind. The Minister of Agriculture this afternoon did not attempt to explain his proposals any further. He explained the Bill at great length and pointed out the difficulty and the length of time which reorganisation of this industry would require. He pointed out the various sections into which it has been or is being divided and which make it difficult to have a complete scheme of reorganisation.
  It cannot be said that agriculture during the past, shall I say, generation, has not been discussed in this House. Proposals for dealing with various branches of it have been submitted and relief of one kind or another has been given for the purpose of assisting it. It cannot be said that the proposals in this Bill are the first proposals for dealing with the question of meat. The Ottawa Agreements have been discussed, imports of meat from foreign countries have been regulated, and we know that a White Paper was issued last December in which the Minister himself undertook to regulate the import of meat from foreign

  1387
  countries and also restrict the import of cattle from Ireland. That has been going on for some time, and it has been pointed out that this subsidy which is to be given to the meat industry is not the end. Indeed, it is only the beginning, and in the proposals of the Minister the only finality which I can see is the question of the levy. There are no proposals at all to deal with the reorganisation of this branch of the industry.
  The Minister himself said in the White Paper which was issued before the discussion on Monday that the Government are of the opinion that a plan based on a levy on all imported meat, including livestock, and a regulated market as in the previous paragraph in this White Paper would be the best long-term solution of the problem and one which would hold best the balance between producer and consumer. It was not contemplated that the levy would exceed one penny per pound with a preference for the Dominions. That is the only long-term proposal which the Minister has had for dealing with this difficulty. I suppose he also contemplates in the negotiations which he intends to have with the Dominions and the Argentine that there shall be some further restrictions. The Minister and the Government appear to be fascinated by tariffs, quotas, embargoes and all other methods of instructing the flow of trade. It can be said of a subsidy, if it has any merit at all, that its only merit is that it is a crude admission that the vested interest that gets it is put on the dole and is subsidised by the man in the street who will know, through Parliament, how much is being paid.
  It is doubtful if the hardships suffered by British agriculture are as great as those suffered by other industries, especially the heavy industries, and it is certain that the present troubles of the farmer are due more to the collapse of the purchasing power of the mass of the people than to the prices in the market. With millions of people below the subsistence level there can be no argument that we suffer from over production of agricultural products. It cannot be said that nothing has been done for the farmer and the landowner, and the country will soon have to decide whether
  1388
  all this assistance that has been given has brought more and cheaper food within the reach of the mass of the people of this country. So much has been said in the Debate to-day and in previous Debates about the assistance which has been given from time to time to agriculture that I think the agricultural Members in this House should be reminded that the 93 per cent. of the population of this country who are consumers pay all the rates on agricultural land in this country. The farmers have their land rate free. We have a tax on our bread to encourage the production of wheat, we pay more for our milk, we pay more for our bacon, fruit and vegetables, we contribute to a subsidy on sugar, and now we are asked to agree to this subsidy of £3,000,000, which, if the Minister gets his way, we shall have to repay by a penny levy on meat imported into this country.
  Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is not the index figure for agricultural products lower than that of any other industry?
  Mr. HALL: I do not know that that has much to do with it, but my hon. Friend must know that as far as beef is concerned the figures for June of this year show that since 1914 the price to the retailer is up by 50 per cent.
  Sir J. LAMB: Also for everything else, for manufactured articles.
  Mr. HALL: We are dealing with meat this evening. I have seen an estimate that the assistance given to agriculture since the War has been sufficient to have purchased about one-quarter of the agricultural land in England and Wales. Another estimate is that in the last five years agriculture has received in relief of taxation and in subsidies in one form and another an amount equal to the wages paid to all the workmen employed in the industry. I wonder what would have happened if other industries had had an equal amount, say the cotton industry, or the industry in which I am interested, that of coal. Whatever can be said about the changed habits of the people and the reduction in the consumption of beef as a result, can be said with regard to coal, for there are new factors of power production which have reduced the consumption of coal. If a claim can be made, as is being made by agriculturists, that for the reasons given by the

  1389
  Minister they are entitled to a subsidy, I say without hesitation that a similar claim can be made on behalf of every other industry which is suffering as a result of the changing habits of the people.
  We have heard a good deal to-day, as we have on previous occasions, about the difficulties with which agriculture is confronted and about farmers being on the verge of bankruptcy. I have heard that argument put in every agricultural Debate that has taken place in the House during the last 12 years. I was interested to see the results of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in the last three years. This Corporation is responsible for financing the industry under the Agricultural Credits Act. The annual meetings of the Corporation indicate that something like £14,000,000 has been lent during the time that the Corporation has been in existence on some 600,000 acres of land, and that mortgages have been given on land in almost every county in the country. The statements made by the Chairman at the annual meetings of the Corporation do not in any way indicate that agriculture is in the condition which hon. Members who represent agricultural interests seem to indicate. In one of the last three years the Chairman stated that lie was pleased to report that 98 per cent. of the repayments and the interest falling due was received within a week of the date fixed for the payment, and that, in addition, £123,000 which was not due was repaid. Last year something like 92 per cent. of the interest and repayments due were made punctually, and in addition some £400,000 was repaid when it need not have been repaid and could have been carried over for the period for which the loan was granted. Such figures and statements from a representative person who is Chairman of this Corporation do not indicate that the agricultural industry is in the condition which hon. Members who represent agricultural districts have indicated in this Debate.
  The £3,000,000 which is provided for in this Bill is just a temporary measure. The Minister hopes that it will be repaid. May I ask from whom it will be collected? A levy is to be charged upon meat imported into this country. As was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends, the poorest people have to eat frozen and chilled meat, and the levy will be charged
  1390
  upon the meat which is eaten by those people. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) said, once this assistance is given to agriculture there will be some difficulty in removing it. This £3,000,000 is for seven months only. In a full year it must amount to something like £5,000,000. In addition to what will be required to meet the annual charge for the payment of this assistance to the producers of cattle, this £3,000,000 must also be charged. I say without hesitation that the working people who eat frozen and chilled meat cannot afford to pay this extra levy.
  I wonder what the President of the Board of Trade has to say about this matter. He was closely questioned in February, 1933, as to the pledge which he gave in the last election which, to put it broadly, indicated that under no consideration would he vote for a tax upon food. He qualified that afterwards and said he did not mean food in the broad sense, but what and meat. The proposal Vontained in this Bill, following out what I think is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture, is that a levy shall be placed upon meat. I can understand why the President of the Board of Trade does not grace us with his presence during the discussions upon this matter. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, there are two Walters. One Walter is concerned about shipping and these restrictions of trade which have compelled the Government to give a subsidy to shipping; and there is the other Walter who is doing his utmost to restrict trade and so make the position of shipping much more difficult.
  I am much concerned about these proposals and their effect upon the coal industry, and especially the coal industry in that part of the country from which I come. It is evident that the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the agreement with the Argentine, is going to adopt some further restrictive measures so far as that country is concerned. The Argentine is one of the best customers of coal we have in South Wales, and South Wales is the most distressed area in the country. The Argentine market is a most valuable market to us, and, if it is further interfered with, more miners will be unemployed, and less of the best agricultural produce which is produced in this country will be consumed, so that

  1391
  miners, instead of depending upon the best British beef, will have to depend upon imported beef. We might rightly ask who is responsible for the increased imports of frozen and chilled foreign meat. Take the question of cattle. The right hon. Gentleman has restricted the imports of store cattle from the Irish Free State by something like 110,000 for the first six months of this year compared with the first six months of 1933. There is this reduction of one-third. At the same time there is an increase of one-third in the importation of cattle from Canada. A reduction in one case and an increase in the other. There is a substantial increase in the amount of chilled meat from the Argentine and a substantial increase in the amount of frozen meat from the Dominions. From New Zealand the increase has been from 270,000 cwts. in the first six months of 1932 to 447,000 cwts. in the first six months of this year. The same can be said of almost all our Dominions in respect of frozen or chilled meat sent to this country.
  What about the question of price? In the White Paper which was published before the discussion last Monday it was stated that British beef was sold at less than pre-war price. So far as the consumer is concerned he does not get that advantage. In 1932 the first quality British beef was sold at 10d. a lb., and at the present time the best British beef is sold at ls. 2d. a lb. I called at a butcher's shop this morning and asked whether he could tell me the price of prime steak, and he said that the best steak was 2s. a lb. He added that they had steak which was very much cheaper but the best steak was 2s. There is a margin between the wholesale price and the retail price, and in the Amendment which was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) we say that that margin could be filled to the advantage of the producer if there was a scheme of reorganisation for the production and marketing of meat. Do not let it be a charge upon the consumer every time.
  During the course of the Debate suggestions have been made to the right hon. Gentleman that he should treat meat as bacon has been treated and that there should be quota restrictions. It is very interesting to note what has been done
  1392
  with bacon. During the first six months of this year the imports of bacon into this country have been reduced as compared with 1932 by nearly 2,000,000 cwts. and the value of those reduced imports of bacon has increased by £500,000. In other words, for nearly 2,000,000 cwt. of bacon less the people of this country are paying 500,000 more than they paid for 2,000,000 cwt. more of bacon imported in the first six months of 1932. Who is finding the money? It is being found by the consumer. The price of bacon has increased. In January, 1933, the wholesale price of Irish bacon brought into this country was 67s. 6d., and in June of this year the price had increased to over 100s. per cwt. Danish bacon was sold in January, 1932, at 62s. 6d. a cwt. and it is now 97s. 6d. a cwt. Hon. Members who represent industrial areas know how important bacon was as part of the food of working people some two or three years ago. I remember bacon being sold at 3½d. to 4d. per lb., I mean the thin slices, but I doubt very much whether the same quality can now be bought at anything less than 7d. or 8d. or 9d. per lb., and if you want the best bacon it costs about ls. 8d. or ls. 10d. per lb. This inflicts considerable hardship on the working classes, and whatever proposals the right hon. Gentleman may introduce, whether they are restrictions or a levy, they will means that the financial difficulties will be felt entirely by the working classes.
  It is surprising that the sale of fresh beef, as of fresh milk, should need to be assisted in this way. One would have thought that the freshness of the home products would have given them a monopoly. But there are other reasons for the falling off in the consumption of beef. Those engaged in the heavy industries were the biggest meat eaters, persons employed in the mining industry have always been large meat eaters, and the falling off in the consumption of meat is largely the result, in the first place, of fewer men being employed in these heavy industries and, in the second place, of the low wages which are paid to those employed. Any rise in price, therefore, will have the inevitable effect of reducing the demand, and thus will not solve the difficulty. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking on the Estimates of the Department last year, in dealing with the question of interfering with the imports of food, said:

  1393
  "We have to go cautiously in these matters. We are handling the food of the people. The country is in no condition to stand spectacular or unjustified rises, and no one wishes to see such rises take place. … If we prejudice the consumer lie will not merely be prejudiced against the importer but against the home producer also. The housewife will put it, down to the avarice of the home producer if she has been forced to pay an unreasonable proportion of her man's weekly wage to fill her shopping basket."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July,, 1933; col. 953, Vol. 280.]
  That is the position, and we say that the demand for cheap food is overwhelming and cannot be disregarded as long as we have the economic conditions which prevail at the moment. Home killed is not sold in working class areas. I wish it was, it is better than foreign. Home killed is a luxury in working class homes. Its price retail militates against bigger sales. If you go to any of the industrial centres you will see numbers of poor people waiting until late on Saturday evenings when there is generally an auction sale of meat, mostly imported, to see if they can get it cheaper than if they had purchased it earlier in the day. If the price of imported meat is increased then numbers of these people will have to go without their Sunday dinner, which is the principal meal of the week in the majority of working class homes.
  This proposal is class legislation in the worst form. A levy will be imposed on the food of the poor to pay for the best meat produced below the cost of production, and wealthy people who can afford to pay will have the best beef in the world at their tables. This will be done at the expense of millions of the poorest of the poor. This legislation, in our opinion, is almost entirely for that purpose. Producers, with the Government's support, are to fix prices for this commodity, presumably at figures high enough to cover relative inefficiency in this industry, and they are to be able to enforce these prices by depriving the public of alternative supplies from abroad. A better way, as was stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), is to organise the production and marketing side of this industry, and to put it on a basis such as to give an adequate reward to those who cultivate the soil and care for the livestock in this assential and important industry, which we all desire to see prosperous.
  1394
  We believe that these proposals are only tinkering with the problem. There is just one consolation, and that is that when the consuming public is once aroused it will with no uncertain voice make short work of these doles, and insist that agriculture shall play its part in the economic life of the nation. It can surely be said that the consuming public is being very patient and very generous to the farmers and the landowners, arid it is to be hoped that they and the Government will not continue to misunderstand this patience or to take advantage of it, as is proposed in this Bill. I readily associated myself with the Amendment which has been moved.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that the Debate has not falsified the hopes which we all had at the beginning of this series of discussions, when I introduced the Financial Resolution and said that the House was entering upon a very great subject, and that I hoped we should find ourselves equal to it. The character of the Debate and the points which have been raised are worthy of the deep consideration which the British House of Commons must give to this subject, opened in this way. The Oppositions are of course in a slight dilemma. The Liberal party have had considerable difficulty in finding rural Members who can reasonably attack the proposals, or urban Members who fully understand their bearing. Right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party are in a still more difficult dilemma. They have to find out of their scanty numbers Members who do not represent mining constituencies to attack any proposals for supply regulation. They are not quite capable of doing it; there are not quite enough Members.
  We have had the hon. Member for the Hemsworth Division (Mr. G. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) putting up a very strong case against the Bill, arguing with great vehemence and putting a point in which they thoroughly believe, but all the time they are conscious of their share of responsibility for the coal quotas and measures for the supply and restriction of coal, and for a Bill which put a heavy burden on the homes of the poor, a Bill which meant higher prices for coal in the working-class home, with no allowance

  1395
  for the fact that the working-classes use very large quantities of coal, and they have succeeded in stabilising the price of coal at the 1931 figure. If we were asking on this occasion for any such thing hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would denounce us with unbridled denunciation.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the prices which will be paid for beef, including this subsidy, will range considerably higher than those of 1931?
  Mr. ELLIOT: In 1931 the index figure for fat cattle was 122; in 1932 it was 115; in 1933, 101 and at the end of June, 1934, it was 94 land if I can get it up to 122—
  Mr. G RENFELL: But does not the subsidy in fact raise it very much higher? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will translate the figure of the subsidy into percentages.
  Mr. ELLIOT: All I can say is that I shall watch the course of prices with great care in the next two or three months, and, if I can get a. rise to 122, I shall consider that we have not done so badly. I am sure if we could offer the beef producer in this country for his autumn cattle a rise of nearly 40 per cent., then the ordinary beef producers would join. in saying, "Great as the praises are which have been heaped upon the head of the Minister, they are nothing to what he ought to get." Let me put it to my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite. Why should it be so wrong for the meat producer to seek to secure the same level of prices which the coal producers secured by the same method—the method of supply restriction?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: This is subsidy.
  Mr. ELLIOT: We have discussed that before, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will admit, as we all admit, that if the full measure of quantitative restriction were applied, if we limited the production as rigidly as is being done in many cases in the coal area, if we threw the butchers out of action for two or three days a month or even longer, if we fined or imprisoned people for overproducing meat as my hon. Friends know their legislation would fine or imprison people who were over-producing coal—if we did that, of course we could get our effect without a subsidy. It is because we do not wish to impose upon the trade of this country and upon the producers
  1396
  the sudden supply restrictions which would be necessary to bring us back to the position of 1931, that we are adopting this method of bridging the gap between the amount of supply restriction which would be necessary and the present level of prices. I put these considerations before my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite and particularly those who have argued with great strength and fervour the case that we are using the poor man's joint in order to subsidise the rich man's beefsteak. I ask them to remember that, all the way through, the difficulty in our modern life is to deal with the lower-grade product—which is not all consumed by one section of the community.
  It is a mistake to think that all the cheaper classes of meat are bought by working-class people. Very large quantities of it are bought by the lower middle-class. Those who know where the meat from the livestock marts actually goes realise that it is very often to the working-class end of the town that the finest beef and the best joints go. The man who is working hard with his hands will pay a heavy price—or his wife will —for good meat. The housewife will no more starve a man of good meat than a man who was racing for his life would starve his horse of good corn. It is not true that the whole of the benefit of the reduction in the price of British beef, or lather, the benefit of avoiding the inevitable rise in the price of British beef which would have to take place if the cost of British beef production were to be borne by the price of British beef alone—it is not true that the whole of that benefit goes to the rich man and that the whole of the burden is borne by the poor man. I admit there is a strong case; my hon. Friends opposite fee] they are on very strong ground when they take the familiar attitude that this is an attack by the rich on the poor. It is not an argument which can be logically defended, but it is a strong argument, as an emotional argument, in this House, and I think they were right in getting off the point of reorganisation, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) devoted a good deal of attention at the beginning of the Debate.
  At the end of the day the reorganisation and rationalisation which would be

  1397
  necessary to make a very great improvement in the price of British beef would be reflected either in the dismissal of great numbers of men or in the lowering of their wages. It is easy to talk about rationalisation, but at the end of the day rationalisation means that some man who is earning his pay is turned out of his job, that some man who is obtaining a portion of the economic results of industry which is higher than that to which he is entitled is cut down and the money which he is receiving goes somewhere else. This idea of getting everything we want by a process of reorganisation and rationalisation is not as simple as our scientific friends are apt to make out. We must remember that we are dealing with a glut of labour. There is a glut of labour as of other things, and the forcing of extra supplies on the market does not always have the effect that it did under 19th century Manchester economics. Unless these supplies can be absorbed we may easily do a certain amount of harm to put against the certain amount of good that is achieved. I ask my hon. Friends when they talk of reorganisation to reflect what that means in terms of employment, and I would ask hon. Members like the hon. Member for Aberdare and the hon. Member for Hemsworth when they say that our action is simply an attack upon the poor man's joint, to reflect how fatally easy it would be to turn the argument against them and to say that the whole of the measures taken to preserve the price of coal at what it was in 1931 were simply an attack by a specialised section, the miners, upon the cooking fires of the millions of housewives throughout the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare brought up the point about the bacon agreement. He said that bacon is at a high price, and that this was a very bad thing; that the foreigner had been given more money and it was a great scandal. Why is the foreigner given more money? To enable him to buy British coal. My hon. Friends cannot be both genial internationalists and narrow and Gradgrind nationalists. They cannot at the same time say, "Let us all be brothers, let us give every man a chance, let us trade freely and profitably with other nations," and at the same time say, "You have made the bacon trade more profitable to the foreigners. What a shame!" They
  1398
  get more money as a quill pro quo for buying more British coal.
  Mr. G. HALL: May I point out that the coal trade, taking it as a whole—the export coal trade—has not benefited to any extent at all as a result?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I will leave my hon. Friend to debate that with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. I notice that he used the saving words "as a whole." I suppose he means that the North-East coast coalfield is one thing and the South Wales coalfield is another. He was saying just now, "Whatever you do about bacon, do not have any quota arrangement with the Argentine," though in another breath he said that was exactly the market to which he wishes to send coal from South Wales. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He cannot severely warn us in open Debate here that the effect of quota arrangements may be to give our foreign customers more money, and not expect that the foreigners who come to make trade 'agreements will not read with great care the wise and weighty words of my hon. Friend when he quotes those figures.
  Mr. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is a good thing for the miners to pay more for their meat and bacon in order to enable the Argentinian and Danish people to buy more coal from us?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I may put that in this. way: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a good thing for the miners to pay so little for their meat and bacon that the Argentinians cannot afford to buy coal? How often have we heard that the bankruptcy of the primary producer is of no advantage to the secondary producer of this country. We are all willing to pay lip-service to these things, but when it comes down to actual argument and we see 6d. lying on the table, how great the temptation is to pounce upon it. The whole question of international trade is extremely complex and complicated. We are admittedly bringing forward in these proposals a compromise, and a compromise of a compromise. We are saying that the best arrangement will be a combination of levy and quota, and that, for the time being, we are willing to carry the levy ourselves, be-

  1399
  cause we believe that that will cause less interference with the course of international trade as a whole.
  I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) say for the first time, speaking in the name of his party and winding up this Debate on Second Reading: "We commend the quota and only the quota to you. Do the whole of this by quota."
  Sir F. ACLAND: I cannot quite admit that. I was referring quite specifically to the very special case of New Zealand who have entirely departed from the gentleman's agreement made at the time of Ottawa, and I think I was very specifically arguing that it is perfectly fair to ask them to restrict their supplies in consideration of the extraordinary way, by the help of a depreciated currency, in which they had increased them.
  Mr. ELLIOT: That is to say, a nation which had accepted the terms of the agreement should be brought back rigidly to the terms of the quota. The nation that observed, and the nation which did not observe, the quota, should be brought back to the terms of the quota. If that is not my right hon. Friend's version, let us have it clearly. I will certainly now assume that that is not only his position but the position of the whole of his party, and that from now on it is on that assumption that we have to proceed. It is not fair to say that the levy is a proposal which merits immediate condemnation. Even so far as reorganisation is concerned,
  "an incentive"
  says my right hon. Friend, the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair),
  "is far better than safeguards.
  The Bill calls out all that is best in the farmer. There is the greatest possible incentive in the Bill to progressive farmers to use up-to-date methods to reform their systems of farming, and to get the greatest amount of profits possible out of the Bill. The same thing applies to marketing. If they could reform that system if they have a producers' marketing board … there again, they will have a still greater advantage out of this Measure, and the 'whole of that time they will be putting their industry on a secure foundation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1932; col. 1077, Vol. 262.]
  1400
  It is fair to use in this connection, but with greater strength and with more confidence, what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland in discussing a proposal on a previous occasion. He also said:
  "It is in the hope that this Bill will help to bridge the gulf and provide, at an imperceptible cost to the consumer, some encouragement and incentive to the farmers, that I commend it to the House to-night."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1932; col. 1078, Vol. 262.]
  Those are the words in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, in the name of his party, commended a levy proposal. That was the wheat quota. There was no differentiation between one farmer and another, no differentiation in favour of one household as against another—[An HON. MEMBER "And no means test"]—and we had no means test. In all these things that Bill was far better than Safeguarding; it called out all that was best in the farmer. I do not know that I would go so far as that myself. I would say that this Bill appeals to the ordinary, average, middle-weight farmer, the man like ourselves, subject to imperfections; but I would not go so far as my enthusiastic Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. But he was speaking in the name of his party, winding up for the Government on a Bill in connection with which he had commended levy proposals to the House, and he represented a united, or an almost united party, or at any rate a party in which all the leaders were united. He led them triumphantly into the Lobby in this Parliament, which was returned to support a National Government with a doctor's mandate applied in this fashion. I do not see my right hon. Friend in his place at this moment, but no doubt we shall have the powerful support of his vote in the Lobby, at any rate, if not at this stage, at some other stage of the Bill. But I do not think it lies in the mouth of any of those who advanced or supported those arguments to condemn us for bringing forward the levy proposals which we are now introducing to the House.
  Taking the case on its broadest basis, surely we come back to the argument put forward by my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite. They say that we are beginning at the wrong end, that if the

  1401
  purchasing power of the people were increased all these other things would come about. I admit that that is the main difficulty in which we are to-day. It is a problem which our system has not yet solved, but let it be remembered that the proposals of my hon4 and right hon. Friends opposite do not solve it any more than ours do, because their proposals for agriculture are based fundamentally upon import boards, and import boards on the lines of their proposals would in fact buy up foreign produce at a low price, and would use that money to bring up the price of British produce. That is exactly the same proposal, economically, which is put to them here, but in a different way, and I think it reflects great credit on my Noble Friend the Member for Rutland (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) that he detected that and put it to the House in a singularly cogent speech. We have not yet dealt with this question fully; we do not yet know how we can completely grapple with this question of increased purchasing power; but I think it is only fair to say that the Government can claim that they have not been unmindful of the problem. A greater number of men are now in employment than there were a year or two ago, and certain cuts have been restored. That must have the effect of increasing the purchasing power of the people. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) complained with some bitterness that we were always flinging at them the fact that there are now 800,000 more men in jobs; and all that I could say in reply was that they never flung it at us.
  I do not say that we have solved the problem of increased purchasing power. We know that the purchasing power is low; we know, as has been brought out in speech after speech throughout the House this evening, that the home market is assuming a greater and greater importance both in our thoughts and in our trade. What troubles us all—or rather, what demands the concentration of mind of us all—is how we can hold, maintain and increase the purchasing power of that home market without at the same time cutting too deeply into the export trades of this country, by which the great proportion of that home market is maintained. That is the dilemma which afflicts us all. But my hon. and right hon. Friends, and hon. Members below
  1402
  the Gangway, have no reason to wrap themselves in their white mantles of righteousness, to make broad their phylacteries, and to claim that no one has ever thought about it except themselves. The fact that two and two make four is not an exclusive discovery of the Liberal party, and the fact that there is a certain desire to produce at home and a desire for trade overseas is one that must be brought home to the mind of a Minister of any Government and is not a fact confined merely to the adherents of one particular persuasion.
  Mr. D. MASON: Why not do something?
  Mr. ELLIOT: We all know, of course, the remedy of my hon. Friend: it is a return to the Gold Standard, and then all these things would immediately fade away. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is part of the remedy."] All I can say is that I did not notice that all these troubles disappeared when we were on the Gold Standard, which is apparently what the hon. Member requires. Secondly, we do not believe in these universal remedies which we can apply to any circumstance or situation however complicated. We must bear with our imperfections. My hon. Friend must therefore excuse me if I do not follow him all the way in his argument. But when he said, "Why not do something?" I was surprised, because I thought his complaint was that to-night in this Bill we were doing something. This is the well-known story of the mother who rang for the maid and said: "Mary, go upstairs and find out what baby is doing and tell him to stop." I am sure that my hon. Friend would not repeat that story on any occasion without adding, "And tell baby to return to the Gold Standard."
  The problems that this House has to attack to-night are problems which it would be useless for us to think that we could solve in this Debate or even by this Bill. As I said when I warned the House, this is the beginning of a series of Debates, and I would go so far as to say that this is certainly not the last Bill that I expect to introduce on the subject. We have had more than one careful and thoughtful maiden speech. We had an excellent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who stressed the question of organisation, and we had a speech of

  1403
  great interest from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Duckworth), who very boldly pointed out that we should have to reconsider our attitude to the whole of the agricultural system and to consider the position of the carbohydrate group, such as sugar-beet, in relation to other groups such as wheat and milk when we were going to the assistance of a particular branch of British agriculture —that we should look to the underpinning of the whole structure.
  The arguments which the House has brought forward to-night are the arguments of those who desire to examine and keep open the whole position. I am sure that even my hon. Friends opposite have not put down the sort of Amendment which was once described by Mr. Wheatley as the "child o' their wrath."
  This is a very mild Amendment. It would, of course, have the effect of killing the Bill if it were carried, but I am sure they would not desire that. They merely wish to impress upon us the necessity for organisation if we are to proceed along this course. They wish to impress upon us the necessity of seeing that this assistance that we are giving does not run into the sand somewhere between the producer and the consumer. They quite rightly point to the great difference that still exists between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays, and I certainly think there is a great deal of slack that might reasonably be taken in without any hardship falling upon the consumer, and I think a rise in prices to the primary producer can well be looked for without any unreasonable rise in prices to the housewife.
  I have every hope that we shall be able to produce that result in this case, but it will take time, and it will mean that in certain instances we may have to put through restrictions in supply more

  Division No. 340.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

  Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Albery, Irving James

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Apsley, Lord

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Clayton, Sir Christopher

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

  Cook. Thomas A.

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Cooke, Douglas

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Burnett. John George

  Copeland, Ida

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

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Craven-Ellis, William

  drastic than the restrictions in supply which we should apply if we were free to use the combined method of quota supply regulations and a levy to make up the difference. The report of the Committee on Agriculture of the Scottish National Development Council that was quoted suggested this as the method which they desired to follow, and it was backed up by Mr. Joseph Duncan, Secretary to the Farm Servants Union, and indeed was commended to the Labour movement of Scotland by a powerful article in "Forward," which no one could bring forward as a capitalist newspaper or a supporter of hon. Members on this side of the House. Opinion is in a fluid state upon this problem of agriculture, and in the Debates so far the House has approached the whole problem in a much more tentative manner than it has ever approached agricultural problems before.
  We must expect the cogent and powerful arguments about raising the price of food which have been advanced by Members opposite and, unless we are prepared to face up to them and meet them, it would not be right for us to go forward with the policy that we are commending to the House. We must expect that arguments on purchasing power will be advanced by hon. Members below the Gangway, and, unless we are also able to meet that point, we shall not be able to proceed with our policy. But I say without hesitation that a case has been made out for action along the lines that we are commending, and it is as the result of these Debates, after listening most carefully to all the arguments advanced from the other side, that I move to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 216;

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)

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

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Dixey, Arthur C. N.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Lees-Jones, John

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Duckworth. George A. V.

  Levy, Thomas

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cuntiffe-

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Edmondson, Major Sir James

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Locker-Lampson,Rt. Hn. G. (Wd,Gr'n)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Loder, Captain J. de Vete

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Elilston, Captain George Sampson

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Sheppereon, Sir Ernest W.

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Mabane, William

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradoston)

  Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

  Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

  Somervell, Sir Donald

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Maitland, Adam

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

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

  Spens, William Patrick

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)

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

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

  Stevenson, James

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Storey, Samuel

  Goldle, Noel B.

  Milne, Charles

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lteut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hales, Harold K.

  Munro, Patrick

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

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Nation, Brigadier General J. J. H.

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  North. Edward T.

  Tree, Ronald

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Nunn, William

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  O'Connor, Terence James

  Tufnell, Lleut.-Commander R. L.

  Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Tartan, Robert Hugh

  Herbert. Major. J. A. (Monmouth)

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

  Patrick, Colin M.

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

  Hors-Belisha, Leslie

  Pearson, William G.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewlek (Wallsend)

  Hornby, Frank

  Petherick, M.

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Horobin. Ian M.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

  Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Potter, John

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Radford, E. A.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hunter-We...on, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rallies, Henry V. A. M.

  Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Ramsay, T. B W. (Western Isles)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Ramebotham, Herwald

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Mr. Blindell and Commander Southby.

  NOES.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maxton, James

  Banfleld, John William

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  mllner, Major James

  Batey, Joseph

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Paling, Wilfred

  Berneys, Robert

  Janner, Barnett

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Buchanan, George.

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Grippe. Sir Stafford

  John, William

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dagger, George

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Kirkwood, David

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Dobbie, William

  Lawson, John James

  Thorne, William James

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Leonard, William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gardner, Benjamin Walter

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Wilmot, John

  Greaten, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.

  Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Margesson.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  WHALING INDUSTRY (LICENCES).
  Resolved,
  "That, under any Act of the present Sesion to enable effect to be given to a Convention for a Regulation of Whaling and to make provision for other matters, such fees as may be prescribed by the licensing authority under the said Act shall be charged in respect of the grant of licences authorising the use of ships and factories for taking and treating whales, being fees which do not exceed—

  (a) two hundred pounds in the case of licences authorising the use of ships or factories for treating whales; or

  (b) one hundred pounds in the case of licences authorising the use of ships for taking whales."—[Mr. Elliot.]

  WHALING INDUSTRY (PAYMENT OF FEES AND FINES INTO EXCHEQUER).
  Resolved,
  "That there shall be paid into the Exchequer—

  (a) all fees received under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and to make provision for other matters by the licensing authority under that Act or by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland or any other person acting under the authority of the Board of Trade; and

  (b) all fines recovered by virtue of the said Act."—[Mr. Elliot.]

  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the presnt Session to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty on the twenty-fourth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, to prohibit the taking or treating of whales within the coastal waters of the United Kingdom, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred for the purposes of that Act
  1408
  by the licensing authority thereunder or by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland or any other person acting under the authority of the Board of Trade (including sums required to pay the remuneration and expenses of whale fishery inspectors acting in pursuance of that Act.)"—(King's Recommendation signified.) —[Mr. Elliot.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (APPEALS) BILL [LORDS].
  Not amended (in the Stand g Committee,) considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908.)
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to lave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
  "(3) In an action brought under the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, damages may be awarded in respect of the funeral expenses of the deceased person if such expenses have been incurred by the parties for whose benefit the action is brought."
  This is a drafting Amendment. The Bill provides that funeral expenses may be recovered under Lord Campbell's Act. It is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin) that the words which appear in the Bill might possibly be misconstrued, and we therefore propose to insert these words, which, I think, meet the point he raised and are more happily framed than those in the Bill.
  Major MILNER: I think the Amendment is an improvement to the Bill. As I understand it, it makes it perfectly clear that the point on which some discussion took place on Second Reading is covered. That point was with regard to the question whether the parents of a child who was killed, for example, in a motor car accident could recover funeral expenses. At the present time the law is that such expenses cannot be recovered. Hon. Members will have known of cases of very great hardship

  1409
  where poor people have lost their young children, and because there is no provision in the law enabling funeral expenses to be recovered in case of negligence those parents, who could ill afford it, have had to pay the funeral expenses or the child has had to be buried at the public expense. I understand that the Solicitor-General has satisfied himself that the defect in the present law will be covered by this Bill and that the Amendment will make that fact clear.
  Amendment agreed to.

  SOLICITORS BILL (Lords).
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply),Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the compulsory acquisition of easements or other rights for overhead main transmission lines in and over certain lands situate at Eastwood, in the county borough of Southend-on-Sea, Which was presented on the 21st day of June, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and 3onfirmed by the Minister !of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of parts of the rural districts of: Marshland Downham and Freebridge Lynn, all in the county of Norfolk, which was presented on the 21st day of June, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of New-market, in the administrative county of
  1410
  West Suffolk, which was presented on the 27th day of June, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the urban 'district of Milford Haven and part of the rural district of Haverfordwest, in the county of Pembroke, which was presented on the 27th day of June, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, as extended by the Statutory Gas Companies (Electricity Supply Powers) Act, 1925, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, to provide for the supply of electricity in parts of the rural districts of Basingstoke, Hartley Wintney, and 'Winchester, in the county of Southampton, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 27th day of June, 1934, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Ashton-upon-Mersey, in the urban district of Sale, in the county of Chester, which was presented on the 28th day of June, 1934, be approyed."— [Mr. Hare-Belisha.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the urban district council of Selby, which was presented on the 12th day of June and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  REFUSE DISPOSAL, LONDON.
  REFUSE DISPOSAL, LONDON.
  PROJECTING COPINGS.
  PROJECTING COPINGS.
  DOMICILIARY RELIEF, WEST HAM.
  DOMICILIARY RELIEF, WEST HAM.
  GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM.
  GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM.
  BEEF GRADING AND MARKING, SCOTLAND.
  BEEF GRADING AND MARKING, SCOTLAND.
  CARTRIDGE-CASE INDUSTRY.
  CARTRIDGE-CASE INDUSTRY.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STRATFORD AND CANNING TOWN).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STRATFORD AND CANNING TOWN).
  COAL INDUSTRY (HORSE LAMPS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (HORSE LAMPS).
  PALESTINE (CIVIL AIRCRAFT, FACILITIES).
  PALESTINE (CIVIL AIRCRAFT, FACILITIES).
TRANSPORT.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PLACES, LONDON.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PLACES, LONDON.
  WATERLOO BRIDGE (TRAFFIC DIVERSION).
  WATERLOO BRIDGE (TRAFFIC DIVERSION).
  POLICE (UNIFORM).
  POLICE (UNIFORM).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  SALARY CUTS (PARTIAL RESTORATION).
  SALARY CUTS (PARTIAL RESTORATION).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Wellington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM):: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. It is moved merely in order to enable the business which was down for Tuesday to be taken on Monday, so that we may take the Road Traffic Bill Report stage on Tuesday, as far as possible without interference. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Motions for the House to be put into Committee on the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, for the Second Readings of the Colonial Stock Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and the Public Works Loans Bill, and for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Shops Bill [H.L.] (which stand appointed for Tuesday next) to Monday next.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and leave given accordingly.

SELBY GAS ORDER, 1934.
LORD TEMPLEMORE:: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name with reference to this Order.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DINDINGS AGREEMENT (APPROVAL) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, this is a Bill to obtain the approval of Parliament in respect of an Agreement which has been concluded
778
with the Sultan of Perak, one of the Federated Malay States, for the retrocession to Perak sovereignty of the territory of the Dindings. The territory has an area of 180 square miles on the West Coast of the Malay Peninsula, and a population of about 20,000. It comprises the headwaters, creeks, and inlets of the Dindings River together with some small islands to seaward. Territorially it is an integral part of the State of Perak, but in 1826 it was ceded to the Honourable East India Company by the Sultan for the purpose of the suppression of pirates who operated from the river and islands in that area. Piracy on this coast has long been a thing of the past, and the desirability of restoring the Dindings to Perak has been under consideration since the end of last century, when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was at the Colonial Office.
The territory is an enclave in the State of Perak, and the Dindings River is the only good access to the sea which the State possesses. In present circumstances it is administered as part of the Settlement of Penang, one of the Straits Settlements, but for various reasons this has been proved to be an inconvenient and uneconomical arrangement. Topographical considerations render administration of the Dindings from Penang far more inconvenient and expensive than would the administration under the Government of Perak. The territory can be reached from Penang either by a sea journey of some 100 miles, exceedingly rough during the South-west monsoon, or by an overland journey through Perak. Further the convenient way to travel from the southern to the northern section of the Dindings lies for some distance through the Sultan's State. In addition the inclusion of the Dindings for administrative purposes in the Settlement of Penang has become definitely undesirable since the wide extension of customs tariffs in the Federated Malay States, as it facilitates smuggling from British territory into that of the States. The frontier between the Dindings and the State of Perak is a purely artificial one and renders not only customs restrictions, but also such matters as quarantine and immigration, difficult of supervision.
The conditions which were present at the time of the cession of the Dindings

779
to the East India Company have long ceased to exist, and the retrocession of the territory, which would of course give the greatest pleasure to the Sultan, would be a fitting mark of appreciation for the steadfast loyalty to the Crown which he and his predecessors have exhibited since the British Protectorate was established in 1874. In the administration of the State the Sultan consults the British Resident and acts upon his advice on all questions other than those touching Malay religion and custom. I might mention that Perak is one of the four Malay States in the Federation which presented this country with His Majesty's Ship "Malaya" and more recently with a gift of £2,000,000 towards the cost of the Singapore base. As regards the terms of the Agreement and the procedure for retrocession it is particularly provided that the transfer of the sovereignty shall not affect the national status of the present inhabitants, and that existing rights in property shall be maintained. An agreed payment to Colonial funds of a sum of approximately £10,000 will be made from Perak revenues in respect of Straits Settlements Government property which will be taken over. The date contemplated for the effective restoration of the Dindings to the State of Perak is three months after this Bill is passed into law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MILK BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Earl of Plymouth.
Clause 3:
Exchequer payments in respect of milk converted into cheese at farms.
3.—(1) Where, by means of such evidence as may be prescribed, the board administering a milk marketing scheme satisfy the Minister that any quantity of milk produced by a registered producer in the area to which the scheme applies has, in any of the twenty-four consecutive months falling between the end of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and the beginning of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, been used by him in manufacturing cheese at a farm in his occupation, then if the cheese-milk price for that month, as certified in accordance with this Act, is less than the standard price for that month, the Minister shall, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the board, in respect of each gallon comprised in that quantity of milk, a sum equal to the difference between the two prices aforesaid:
Provided that, as respects any particular milk marketing scheme, the Minister may from time to time by order direct that no sums shall be payable under this section to the board in respect of milk which has, in any month to which the order applies, been used by a registered producer in manufacturing cheese at a farm, unless the board satisfy the Minister that, at the beginning of that month, the registered producer had in his possession, in the area to which the scheme applied, not less than such number of milch cows as may be specified in the order; and the Minister may by order vary or revoke any previous order made by him under this proviso.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "such number of" and insert "four." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises the question of whether it is desirable to have a limit of twelve cows before any cheesemaker can get the subsidy. Why do I say twelve cows? I do so because there was a letter written to farmhouse cheesemakers by the Milk Marketing Board. They say that:
"the Board will purchase the farmhouse cheesemakers' milk at the regional 'pool' price, and re-sell it to them at a price per gallon equal to the 'pool' price less the Government's grant per gallon for milk for farmhouse cheese, and the sum of Id. per gallon for 'hard' cheese and ½d. per gallon for Caerphilly cheese."
At the end of the letter they say:
"The minimum number of cows to be kept by a cheesemaker to be eligible for this contract is twelve. This condition would be embodied in a ' sub-sale ' contract which would contain the terms requiring the cheesemakers to manufacture the milk into cheese on their farms, and such other conditions in that connection as the Board thought fit to impose."

781
It is entirely in the discretion of the Minister for the time being to say what the limit should be, but I take it that it is most likely that the limit will be that which is imposed by the Milk Marketing Board in the circular letter from which I have read.
I do not see why there should be this limit of twelve because undoubtedly cheese is made in much smaller quantities than would be produced by twelve cows. The British Dairy Farmers' Association, in 1933, had an exhibition and the schedule contained one class for cheeses not exceeding 8 lbs. each, and they had another class for smallholders, for cheeses not exceeding 8 lbs. each, confined to those occupying not more than 50 acres. Then they had another county competition with exactly the same restriction, that the quantity must not exceed 8 lbs. It is. quite clear that this proviso, if the Minister carries out what the Milk Marketing Board evidently desire, will make it impossible for any smallholder to receive a grant under the Cheesemaking Order. I cannot see why that should be necessary, because I have seen these cheeses at the British Dairy Farmers' exhibition at Islington. They make very good cheeses indeed, and instead of discouraging smallholders to make cheese, I think we ought to encourage them.
Then again, as I read the letter of the Milk Marketing Board, it would mean that the cheese must actually be made on the particular farm. Smallholders who have fewer than twelve cows might combine and send their cheese to another farm, but I am very doubtful whether they would be allowed to do so. I should not so much object to this if it were not that we cannot tell what kind of a Minister of Agriculture we may have at some future time. We may have some Minister who takes quite different views from the present Minister in this matter. The reason why I press this is that orders under this clause would not be laid before both House of Parliament. It would remove many of my objections if an order had to be laid, and if it were thus possible for Parliament to make any objections they desired to this limit.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("such number of") and insert ("four")—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): I think this Amendment and the next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord can be taken together, the second one being consequential. Their effect would be to incorporate in the Bill, instead of in the; order that will later be made by the Minister, the number of cows which would qualify the Board to draw an advance in respect of cheese which is manufactured on farms. In our view this Amendment would be very inadvisable, because once you insert a number in an Act it becomes unalterable except by an amendment to the Act, whereas, if we leave it to the order, the figure inserted in the order is a figure that can at any time be easily altered.
The noble Lord has read out a letter from the Milk Marketing Board on this subject, indicating that the number of cows at the present moment is twelve. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that that letter is not from the Ministry of Agriculture but from the Milk Marketing Board, and it is our view that it is far better that the Milk Marketing Board and the National Cheese Committee, as representing the farmhouse cheesemakers, should settle this matter by agreement between themselves, and that then the Minister should simply come in with an order and give ratification. For that reason I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. If the noble Lord feels that the number twelve is too great, then surely it would be very much better to make representations to the Milk Marketing Board and to the National Cheese Committee, who could then, deal with the matter.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not think the noble Earl has given me a satisfactory answer, and I also notice that he carefully avoided giving an answer to the question as regards orders being laid on the Table of this House and in another place. But I will raise that again when we come to another Amendment of mine, dealing with the laying of orders, because if I were to divide the House now there would not be a quorum. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment for that reason.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Definition of "cheese-milk price" and "standard price," and certification of cheese-milk price.
4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) the cheese-milk price for any month shall be the excess over one penny three-farthings of the average price per pound at which cheese such as is commonly known at the commencement of this Act as "New Zealand finest white" and "Canadian finest white" was sold wholesale in Great Britain during the immediately preceding month; and
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "average price" and insert "average of the prices." The noble Earl said: This may-look like a drafting Amendment, and so to some extent it is, but on the other hand it is rather important, because in paragraph (a) the cheese-milk price for any month is defined as "the excess over one penny three-farthings of the average price per pound" at which certain cheeses were sold wholesale in Great Britain during the immediately preceding month. The words "average price" might be open to two interpretations. They might mean the simple average between the two prices, or the weighted average after taking into account the weight of cheese sold at each price. The custom of the trade has been to use the simple average, and this is the intention of the Bill, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make that point quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("average price") and insert ("average of the prices).—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provisions for enforcing payments due to Exchequer]:
EARL DE LA WARR: The Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, after ("those") insert ("registered ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to revocation of schemes.
(3) If, in a case where a milk marketing scheme is revoked in the manner mentioned
784
in the last foregoing subsection it appears to the Minister that the revocation of the scheme was demanded by the registered producers for the purpose of evading any liability to make payments to the Minister which, but for the revocation, the board might have incurred by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Minister, within one month from the date on which the revocation takes effect, may by order direct that, notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the scheme on the amount which a contributor is liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board and to the payment of the costs and expenses of the winding up, that amount shall be increased to such extent as appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, to be necessary for enabling any debt due under the last foregoing subsection from the board to the Crown to be paid in full.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises an important point and one that may be of interest to noble Lords, even those noble Lords who are not immediately concerned with the details of the Bill. In the subsection that my Amendment proposes to delete will be found certain words which I shall read, if I may:
"… the Minister … may by order direct that, notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the scheme on the amount which a contributor is liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board and to the payment of the costs and expenses of the winding up, that amount shall be increased to such an extent as appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, to be necessary …"
These words are evidence of the intention of the clause. They are also evidence of the fact that the registered producers at their poll in which they declared in favour of the scheme declared in favour of a certain limited liability, and the purpose of this clause is, after the approval of the registered producers has been given to a scheme of limited liability, to increase by Act of Parliament that limited liability to an unlimited liability.
The clause therefore raises a principle that goes beyond the mere administrative provisions of the Bill. The question is one that, I admit, has been and must continue to be very difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture to decide. It has been argued that if the producers and those who administer the scheme found they were under necessity to wind up the scheme owing, let us say, to unrestricted imports of milk products making it impossible to carry on, and they used that

785
excuse (shall we put it?) for bringing the scheme to an end, they might do so frivolously, and the Treasury would in the absence of this provision find itself unable; to recover moneys to which it would otherwise be entitled. There arises immediately a question as to whether in fact the Treasury, through the Ministry, should consider itself entitled to the repayment of moneys which, in effect, have been given as a subsidy to maintain the manufacturing price of milk because, by reason -of the Government's own action at Ottawa, it has been found impossible to give that protection to the dairying industry which other industries have found it possible to enjoy.
Other industries, so far as I know, are not being called upon, and have no likelihood of being called upon, to refund the advantages given to them by a straightforward protection. It would be a remarkable development if they were. But here we have the dairying industry disabled by the action of the Government at Ottawa—I am not criticising that action; I merely state the fact—from receiving a straightforward protection, yet being called upon in certain circumstances to refund State moneys which have been given to them as a substitute for the protection which otherwise they would have received. These are the moneys that are in question, and it is proposed, under the subsection that I desire to delete, to increase the liability of producers—the liability to which they agreed at the poll—to such an extent as may be necessary in certain circumstances to refund these subsidy moneys which have been paid to them under the conditions I have described. I deeply regret that the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House is not here, because I was rot entirely without hope that his trained mind would have at once found it necessary to intervene in this matter in order to give an expression of legal opinion; but it is certainly most remarkable that the Government think it right to accept the vote of the producers in respect of the scheme of limited liability and then, in an Act of Parliament, deliberately to increase that liability to an unlimited extent. That cannot be equitable. Naturally it can be legal if it finds its way into an Act of Parliament, but it is the kind of provision which would deeply offend any legal luminary with whom I have ever had contact.
That is the situation. I seek by my Amendment to delete the subsection and so avoid this peculiar and wholly undesirable precedent from being established by Act of Parliament. In another place my honourable friend Colonel Ruggles-Brise dealt with this matter, and sought to introduce an Amendment enabling the producers to poll again before they became liable to this unlimited liability. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture gave a reasonable answer, which was couched of course, most courteously, to the effect that "you are willing to accept a subsidy so long as it runs, but when you have got to repay you are going to cut out." That was very sound so far as it went, and to a certain extent not unreasonable, but the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will find I have a further Amendment on page 12, line 7, that seeks to provide for a poll of the producers being taken before any subsidy is received. If it suits the convenience of the noble Earl to deal with both my Amendments in the same reply I am quite agreeable. My second Amendment would of course go behind the Minister's argument, and would not make it possible for him to say the producer had taken money which he was unwilling to refund when he became liable.
Personally I would prefer to see the subsection deleted, because the principle of compelling a man who has agreed to one thing to agree to some further liability by Act of Parliament, and without his consent, is one which, as I have already said, is highly undesirable. If, on the other hand, the House so belies its tradition as to permit the insertion of such words in an Act of Parliament, then I suggest it is only right and proper that the producers should be given an opportunity before they receive this money of saying whether they accept this further liability. I do not think there is anything more I can add to the argument, and I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to give me such a reply as will meet the very reasonable objection and fears of producers, who do not think that in this matter they are being fairly treated. I think if the Government were to consult any lawyer in the Kingdom they would find he would hold up his hands aghast at the proposition that finds its way into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I quite understand the misgivings to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has given expression, but I really do think they are based on a total misunderstanding of the situation. The noble Lord read out to your Lordships words which appear on page 11 of the Bill:
"…. the Minister …. may by order direct that, notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the scheme on the amount which a contributor is liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board …. that amount shall be increased to such an extent as appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, to be necessary …."
That sounds a very drastic provision taken by itself. He went on to remind your Lordships that this was inserted in the Bill after the registered producers had voted themselves into the scheme without any idea of this provision coming along. If the noble Lord had looked at the Bill only a few lines before he would have seen that it referred to
"any liability to make payments to the Minister which, but for the revocation, the board might have incurred by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Act …."
If your Lordships will turn to the Bill you will see that the "foregoing provisions" deal entirely with the terms of payments from the Exchequer to the milk producers and arrangements for repayment by the Milk Marketing Board.
The position, therefore, is this. The Milk Marketing Scheme was brought forward; there was a poll of producers on that Scheme, the majority of producers voted for it and it was put into operation. After that it was found that the Milk Marketing Board required further assistance and, accordingly, assistance was negotiated between the Government and the Milk Marketing Board. That was an entirely new arrangement. It is true to say that the terms of repayment are new. The Milk Marketing Board were perfectly free to say that they did not like the terms of repayment and that the assistance was offered in such a form that they could not accept it, but they did not do so. They have expressed themselves as being prepared to accept the assistance of the Government, and the Government have laid down terms on which they are prepared to grant that
788
assistance. The words in this Bill deal purely with this later bargain. I can further reassure your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that not only the terms for payment, but the terms for repayment, have been fully accepted by the Milk Marketing Board. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl has given a perfectly straight answer to the circumstances which I have brought forward, but he has carefully avoided touching on the feelings of the producer. The noble Earl would not have stated, if it was not correct, that a new arrangement contemplated by the producer has been entered into between the Ministry and the Marketing Board. I agree that the Ministry were perfectly entitled, in the. interests not only of good government but of every other interest, to make terms. I do not find fault with the terms. What I do find fault with is that the producer himself has not been consulted in the interim, and that, by an Act of Parliament, the producer will be made responsible, perhaps against his will, for an action of the Milk Marketing Board which may, or may not, work out in his interests. That is really what it comes to. The producer is being taken advantage of to an extent which is really, I submit, not fair. If the noble Earl thinks the matter will be best met by taking a poll of the producers before they have received any money, and that happens before they have become parties to the engagement entered into with the Ministry by the Milk Marketing Board, then the point is met. I am not one of those who believe that the producers are going to turn down four years' subsidy because of the unlimited liability which they may have to meet in the end. My desire is that we should not create a grievance.
You want to start this machine as far as possible with well-oiled wheels. If you start with a lot of producers compelled by an Act of Parliament to accept a liability without having voted for it, you will start with disgruntled individuals who will throw sand into the machine from the beginning. I want to avoid that. Rather than that should come about I think it would be better to delete the whole subsection. If the noble Earl thinks otherwise, then I would

789
ask him to accept the alternative proposal which stands in my name later on the Paper. I am afraid I cannot accept the answer which he has given as conclusive. We admit that the Milk Marketing Board and the Ministry have arrived at an arrangement which they think fair and equitable and right, but the producers have not had a chance of expressing an opinion upon it. I am afraid at the moment I must adhere to my Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord is right in saying that if there is to be a poll on this question it must be before any money is handed out. I venture to suggest that we must get into the habit, and fanners must get into the habit, of looking upon the Marketing Board as a body of men appointed by the producers to take responsibility, and if every time an important decision has to be taken the members of the Board have to go back to the producers and have a poll then the whole thing is going to fall into chaos. It would be like saying that before any Act of Parliament was passed there should be a referendum of the electors. I suggest that the best thing for us to do is to use our personal influence to explain these provisions to the producers, so that they may realise that this is merely part of a bargain by means of which they receive a benefit in return for certain repayments. I am quite sure this Scheme will start out without any sand in the wheels when it is realised by the producers that they have been given very generous treatment.
LORD HASTINGS: I am reluctant to detain the Committee further, but it will not be for more than a moment. The noble Earl and I are in complete agreement on the whole matter. I am just as anxious as he to see that this Scheme is started under favourable conditions, and I want to see it started without complaint from the producers. I agree that to be continuously going back to the producers to take polls upon this, that and the other would be a confounded nuisance, to put it in the mildest possible way. It is better that the producers of the article should be brought up to trust their representatives in the corporate body such as that which has been constituted, but I still think that there will be large numbers of producers who will feel that they have not had a fair deal in this matter. The
790
words of the Bill are in themselves evidence of that. My action in the matter must depend upon whether other noble Lords in the House who have heard the arguments on both sides feel with me in the matter, or whether the balance of opinion lies with the noble Earl. In the latter case I shall withdraw my Amendment having made my protest. If, on the other hand, I get any support, I think, in view of the fact that local bodies have expressed themselves with great strength and force on the subject, I shall have to proceed to a Division. It must depend upon whether I get any support from the Committee or not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Payments for securing pure milk supply.
9.—(1) During a period of four consecutive years beginning on a day appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction, the said Minister or Secretary of State may, subject as hereinafter provided and in accordance with arrangements made by him and approved by the Treasury, expend out of moneys provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit, with the object of securing so far as practicable that the milk supplied for human consumption in England or in Scotland, as the case may be, is pure and free from the infection of any disease:
Provided that—

(a) the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall not make any arrangements for the purposes of this subsection except after consultation with the Minister of Health; and

(b) not more than seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds in the aggregate shall be expended under this subsection.

(2) Not later than the end of the period mentioned in the foregoing subsection, the Minister may, after consultation with the boards administering any milk marketing scheme for the time being in force, make an order for securing that where the board administering any such scheme are satisfied, with respect to any quantity of milk produced after the end of that period in the area to which the scheme applies, that it has been produced by a registered producer in such circumstances as the Minister may prescribe in the order with the object mentioned in the foregoing subsection, the board shall pay to that registered producer, in respect of each gallon comprised in that quantity of milk, such sum not exceeding one penny as may be specified in the order.
Any order made under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner as the original order.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in proviso (a), in subsection (1), after "Health," to insert "and with the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales or the Milk Marketing Board for Scotland as the case may be." The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will allow me I will move this Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. The purpose is quite simple. The Amendment is put down, not because of any childlike faith in the capacity of the Milk Marketing Board, but because of a very great lack of faith in the Ministry of Health from the standpoint of the agriculturist. There is in the Bill really no form of protection for the milk producer, who is to be handed over in very large measure to the Ministry of Health, which, I say with all respect, is very largely under the influence of the medical profession. Now the medical profession and the Ministry of Health together know nothing whatever about milk production, and I fancy they care very much less. In so far as that is so they are the enemies of the producer. That is a statement of fact.
Our proposal is that some kind of protection to the producer should be given by providing for consultation with the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales, or the Milk Marketing Board for Scotland, before administrative orders are made at the instance of the Ministry of Health to the disadvantage of the milk producer. I think it is a reasonable request. The Milk Marketing Board include representatives of the producers. The noble Earl the other day addressed to us a little homily on that subject. He pointed out that the producers should learn to trust their own representatives on the Board. I am entirely with him, but I think they would trust them a great deal more if the Board is given a little more authority. If it be found possible to insert this quite humble Amendment, which seeks to offer some protection to the producers through the medium of this Board against the attacks of the Ministry of Health, and in fact the urban interest, agriculturists will be very much obliged.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 32, after ("Health") insert ("and with the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales or the Milk Marketing Board for Scotland as the case may be.")—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I should very much like to accept this Amendment because most of us must feel a very friendly disposition towards its object. The only objection is that we do not like to specify any one body in an Act of Parliament because that seems to exclude others. If one body were specified no doubt the proper body would be the Milk Marketing Board. I hope we shall not be pressed to insert this Amendment. I would like to give the noble Lord and the Committee a very definite undertaking on behalf of the Minister and the Ministry as a whole, the permanent Department, that it is our very definite intention always to consult with the Milk Marketing Board on this matter in which they are so deeply involved. Indeed, the work of the Department would be quite impossible if we attempted to deal with milk problems in the future without consulting this particular body. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that undertaking and will not press for the insertion of the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I think that when the OFFICIAL REPORT is printed in the morning and the words of the noble Earl are read, it will be agreed that they entirely meet the case. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) such proportion (not being less than one half) of the said sum as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction as aforesaid, may determine, shall be allocated for the purpose of making grants to the councils of administrative counties in aid of the expenditure incurred by them in providing and maintaining a whole-time veterinary service for their areas."
The noble Lord: This Amendment is put down on behalf of the County Councils Association who for some years have taken great interest in seeing that there should be a pure milk supply in this country. As the clause now stands a sum of £750,000 is to be paid to secure a pure milk supply. Apparently the object of the clause is to secure milk pure and free from the infection of any disease. Perhaps we shall have an explanation from the noble Lord of how

793
he expects this is going to be done. I must confess I do not think the proposals in the Bill are likely to have the desired effect, which I am sure we are all most anxious to secure—namely, that dairy herds shall be thoroughly cleaned up and able to produce clean, pure milk. Apparently, what is to happen is that producers who supply that milk are to get a sum not exceeding 1d. per gallon extra from 1he Milk Board. That is all very well. No doubt a certain number of producers will get this penny, or may be only a halfpenny, out of the £750,000. But that will not have the effect which I imagine all your Lordships desire. What we want is not that a certain number of people should produce pure milk in order to get an extra penny. What we want is that all the dairy herds of the country should be in such a condition that there should be always pure milk free from any infectious disease.
If you are going to achieve that ideal it is necessary that there should be cooperation by the county councils. County councils are already the authorities for administering the Diseases of Animals Act and for inspections of cattle and milk under the Dairies Order, 1926. I should like to remind the Committee that up to the present time no grants have been made to county councils to help them to carry out those duties. The work is done at their own expense and therefore there is little inducement for them to spend money, especially in these hard times, for agriculture. The County Councils Association take great interest in this matter, as I have said, and on March 12 this year the chairman of the agricultural committee of the Association wrote to the Minister of Agriculture asking for a proportion of this £750,000. He did that because after evidence had been given by the County Councils Association before the Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council, the Council had reported to this effect, as appears in paragraph 23 of their Report:
"To assist the expansion of the veterinary service, the Exchequer should make a contribution to the local authorities apportioned among the various counties in such a way that those on which the burden would be most severe would benefit the most."
The Minister's reply to that was only chat it was under consideration.
Up to now the County Councils Association has not heard from him what his
794
views are with regard to that resolution passed by the Economic Advisory Council. In his letter he said that he would not say anything at that moment because he was waiting for that Report. No doubt he has had the Report now, but at the same time he has made no reply as regards that point. I am not for one moment finding fault with the Minister for not doing so, because we are all perfectly well aware that the Minister has had a very strenuous time. Not only are questions and difficulties arising over prices affecting the Milk Board, but lately he has no doubt been worried to death over the question of beef. It is no fault of his that owing to the Ottawa. Agreements this awful muddle has been made as regards both milk and beef. It was not the fault of Mr. Elliot, it was the fault of the previous Minister of Agriculture, Sir John Gilmour, that this Ottawa Agreement was made, which has caused such great trouble to the Minister himself. I should think he is very sorry indeed that that Agreement, which hampers agriculture so seriously, was ever made.
What is the present position? Only a very few counties have appointed a whole-time veterinary officer. If I may refer to my own county, the county of Somerset has actually appointed a whole-time veterinary officer to look after the health of the dairy herds in that county, and also in addition there are 22 part-time veterinary surgeons. There is no regular routine inspection of the 121,000 cows in milk or in calf or heifers in milk in the county of Somerset, and no auxiliary bacteriological work is undertaken; but at the same time the present average expenditure is the sum of £2,500 a year. I am given to understand that if there were a systematic veterinary inspection it would cost about £13,000 a year, and if there were bacteriological work it would cost something like £1000 to £1,500 a year. I think that shows that if the county councils are to undertake this work it is indeed very necessary that the Government should be prepared to give them some share of this £750,000 grant.
I venture to say that if you are anxious that every county should appoint a whole-time veterinary officer—and it is undoubtedly desirable that they should go further and have a routine inspection of

795
all the dairy cattle in their area—it is absolutely necessary that some large grant should be made either from this fund or from some other source. The Government have given, this large amount of money to clear up disease among cattle, and I venture to think that there could not be a better way of doing it than applying some of it, as the County Councils Association have asked, for the benefit of the county councils, so that county councils like that of Somerset may be encouraged to spend more and to have a routine inspection of all the dairy herds, and also that the backward counties and the poor counties—because some counties cannot afford it, though they seem to be backward—should be encouraged in this matter by being allowed to have some share in this grant.
I venture to think that the proposal of the Government just simply to give a certain amount of money to the Milk Marketing Board in order that they may give a premium to those who produce pure milk under the conditions imposed by the Ministry will not effect the object at all. No doubt it will produce some pure milk, but it will not do what I believe the majority of your Lordships are most anxious for; that is, ensure that we should have a national system by which we should be able to clear the dairy herds from all disease which is communicable to a human being. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SITULBREDE: My noble friend Lord Snell, who is detained elsewhere with his public duties, has asked me on his behalf to support the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. He would have explained, had he been here, that the London County Council, from their long experience of sampling milk arriving in the county from sources outside the county, are impressed with the great importance of ensuring the provision of a milk supply free from tubercule bacilli and other contaminating organisms, and are of the opinion that if part of the Exchequer grant could be allotted to county councils for the purpose of improving the veterinary service in their areas, the result would be to assist in improving at the source the milk supply
796
which comes into London and to ensure to a great extent the purity of the London milk supply. For this reason I beg to support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: We are in some difficulty in this matter because we have not yet had the advantage of seeing the scheme under which the £750,000 is to be expended. That in itself is natural enough, because the scheme cannot be prepared, or at any rate it cannot be presented, until this Bill becomes the law of the land. But there is a good deal, not necessarily of confusion of thought, but of contrary opinion in this matter. As we understand—and upon this I am hoping that the noble Earl will give us further information—the £750,000, or by far the greater proportion of it, is to be allocated to the purpose of making payments to the producers of milk which reaches certain standards. I will not specify or attempt to define at the moment what those standards are to be, but the purpose seems to be that the great bulk of the £750,000 should, over a term of years, be paid to the producers of milk of certain standards.
There is of course another way of achieving the same result, and that is by devoting a large proportion of the money to the cleaning up of the dirty herds 'at the bottom of the roll rather than giving the whole of the money to the clean herds at the top. I do not know that a body representing farmers could very well support this Amendment, but looked at from the widest national standpoint I think there can be no doubt at all that to apply funds to the institution of an efficiency veterinary service, which will eliminate the offending herds at the bottom of the health list, would be better than giving the whole of the money to those who are prepared to enter the market as producers of clean milk. There is nothing at all said about it in the Bill, but I have been told that a relatively small portion of this £750,000 is to be earmarked for the provision of a central administrative veterinary service—a service which will co-ordinate the services which are to be established by county councils and local authorities. I do not know whether that is so or not, but the noble Earl will tell us.
It is perfectly evident that in order to implement the terms and conditions of this Bill when it becomes an Act of

797
Parliament a very large veterinary service will have to be established and maintained. How the veterinary service is to be enlarged at short notice is not so very obvious. We are none of us quite convinced that the number of veterinary surgeons is sufficient to meet the demand. But whether they are efficient or inefficient, whether they are qualified or unqualified, there is nothing more certain than that whoever is employed will have to be paid. That is perfectly inevitable. As they have to be paid, somebody has to pay them. Whether the Ministry is going by order to compel the county councils and local authorities to incur this additional expenditure or not I do not know, but by some means or other pressure will obviously be brought to bear upon the county councils and local authorities to incur it, unless provision is made to meet the expense out of moneys provided by Parliament.
The purpose of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, I take it is to diminish the sum available for the payment of one penny and sometimes two-pence to the producers of the milk, and to divert a sum, which shall not be less than half of the whole, to the payment of the veterinary service which will have to be provided. Whether he moved his Amendment because he thought that that was the most effective way of securing a pure milk supply, or whether he moved it because he disliked the placing of an additional charge on the local authorities, I am not sure, but it is unimportant. If there is no such provision as his Amendment seeks to make there will fall upon the local authorities a heavy additional expense. Whether compelled thereto by the Ministry or by circumstances matters little, but the expense which arises will have to be met by the ratepayers. The ratepayers will say that this is a national service, in which the big towns are interested, and that it is the duty of the nation to see that the big towns are supplied with pure milk at the expense of the State and not of the poor ratepayers. It is an argument which has a good deal to be said for it. When the noble Earl replies I hope he will tell us a little more about how the £750,000 will be spent, and the Committee will then be able to form an opinion as to whether the Amend-
798
ment is one which should be passed. For the moment I beg to support Lord Strachie's Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, before I deal with the merits of the Amendment I think I must make it clear to your Lordships that this Amendment is really dealing with a matter falling within the Privilege of the House of Commons, and therefore a matter which naturally we discuss in this House with some diffidence, although we realise that it is not in any way ruled out of our discussion. There is one other foreword. I am rather sorry that Lord Strachie should so continually be speaking abusively of my late chief, Sir John Gilmour, and generally speaking on occasions on which I should be just as irrelevant in replying as he is in raising the question. With regard to the Amendment before us I think there is some misunderstanding lying behind it, but a misunderstanding for which one could not attempt to blame any one, because I would be the first to admit, as Lord Hastings has said, that the scheme for cleaning up herds has not been before the House in full detail. Lord Hastings mentioned the difficulty there has been in carrying on negotiations with a number of bodies and in not being able to commit ourselves.
The misunderstanding arises here because there are two quite distinct schemes. There is the scheme which is affected by the finance of this Bill, the Ministry's scheme for building up a supply of tubercle-free herds—what we call the attested scheme. In order to enter into that scheme a herd-owner will have to satisfy the Ministry that he has had two successive tests at six months' intervals, which show his herd to be completely free. Immediately on receiving notification of that fact the Ministry, within sixty days, would proceed to carry out its own test at the Government expense, with its own service, the central service to which Lord Hastings has already referred. On entering into that scheme the owner will be entitled to a premium of a penny per gallon, to be paid out of the £750,000. While it is very difficult indeed to estimate the number of herds which are likely to come in, and therefore the expense which is likely to fall upon that sum, we estimate that it would be

799
approximately £450,000. That is over the whole period of four years.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will the noble Earl make it quite clear whether that covers the expenditure on the State veterinary service as well as the penny per gallon paid to the owner?
EARL DE LA WARR: I give £450,000 as the approximate estimate of what the penny per gallon will come to. It is impossible to be tied to anything. In addition, there is a further scheme which does not come under this Bill at all. The accredited herd scheme is a scheme to be prepared and administered entirely by the Milk Marketing Board. There are still, I understand, some details of that scheme to be settled and negotiated, but it will be approximately on the line that every herd shall be open to clinical inspection twice a year, and that the milk produced from those herds shall have to come up to Grade A standard. For entry into that scheme there will also be a premium of one penny per gallon to be paid out of the funds of the Milk Marketing Board. That means that a herd owner in the Ministry's scheme will automatically be put on the Milk Marketing Board scheme, and will be receiving a premium of 2d. for his milk. Your Lordships will see from the outline of these two schemes that no expense whatever is to fall on the county council under the Ministry's scheme. It may be that under the Board's scheme the counties might find it necessary to provide more veterinary officers, but that scheme does not come in any way under this Bill, and if the counties do in this respect find themselves faced with expense, your Lordships know that the new system by which local authorities are financed is that they shall receive a block grant from the Government, settled for four or five years, and at the end of that period the additional expenditure is brought into computation.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will the noble Earl say whether that block grant is included in the sums in this Bill?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the last settlement was made last year. All new expenditure, whether for veterinary officers or education or whatever it may be, will, as the noble Lord knows, have to be carried by the county until the next settlement somes in 1937 or 1938.
800
But let me stress the point that if noble Lords are dissatisfied with that arrangement it is a dissatisfaction which should be expressed with regard to the general system of local authority finance; it is not a matter that is in any way concerned with this Bill. Under this Bill not a single county veterinary officer will have to be appointed, and in view of that fact I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which really has nothing to do with this Bill.
LORD CRANWORTH: I should like to be a little more clear about the accredited herd scheme. That scheme, as far as I know it—and as the noble Earl has said, it is not out in its full particulars yet—entails three things, not two things. One is the clinical examination at least twice a year by the county veterinary officer; the second is a certificate provided by the agricultural staff of the authority to the effect that the methods employed in connection with the production of milk on the applicant's farm have been examined and approved; and the third is the certificate which he mentioned with regard to Grade A milk. For that milk 1d. a gallon is going to be paid. What I am not clear about is who is actually going to pay that penny? Is it coming out of the £750,000? He has made it clear that the penny for the attested herds will amount in his opinion to £400,000 out of the £750,000, but the accredited herd scheme will undoubtedly be far more popular, and cost a great deal more, and will come into operation much sooner. I should like the noble Earl to tell me whether that fund is going to receive any of this £750,000, because it is at all events clear to me that, if it is, the £750,000 will melt like the snows of yesteryear.
EARL DE LA WARR: I meant to make it quite clear that the accredited herd scheme has nothing whatever to do with our scheme, and therefore no payment has to be made out of the fund. The noble Lord asked whether the accredited herd fund is going to receive any of the £750,000. That is entirely the affair of the Milk Marketing Board, but I should say that the money will be found in exactly the same manner as the additional sum paid for good pigs is found by the Pig Marketing Board. It is simply a matter of the allocation of the fund.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Earl for his information. I would

801
only tell him that I have just come from the Milk Marketing Board, and the information he has given us is entirely contrary to that which was given me there.
LORD HASTINGS: What does the noble Earl propose to do with the balance of tie £750,000? He has earmarked £400,000 for the attested scheme so that £350,000 will be available for something else. What for?
EARL DE LA WARR: We shall have a good bit in reserve and in a year or two we shall be able to see how things go on.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot say that I am satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl. He certainly did not seem to think that there was going to be a very great demand at first on this large sum of money. I understood that a very small amount would be spent in the first year, and I understood further that before the dairyman gets the extra 1d. a gallon there-would have to be a clinical examination of the herd. That is one of the conditions that would be imposed by the Ministry. No doubt that would be a very proper thing. Then he went on further to say that there might probably in the future be clinical examinations. That, is an im-
portant point. In the future we are going to have heavy expenditure put on the county councils. The probability is that a very small amount would be required for the first year or two from this £750,000, and why should not the county councils have the benefit of some of that expenditure, in order that we might have a national system of dealing with disease among dairy cattle? If it were found afterwards that more money was required certainly for a great national object the Minister would be perfectly ready to come forward and help the county councils.
It will be remembered that as regards all additional expenditure now the county councils get no help, because we have the block grants, and all additional expenditure has to fall on the county rates. It is not like the old days when a certain proportion was given by the State as a contribution to the county councils. I regret that I can get no satisfactory answer from the noble Earl, and I must therefore press this to a Division.
On Question, Whether the proposed new paragraph shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Mersey, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Rathcreedan, L.

Airlie, E.

Rhayader, L.

Bathurst, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sanderson, L.

Denbigh, E.

Denman, L.

Snell, L.

Strafford, E.

Hastings, L.

Stanmore, L.

Middleton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Plymouth, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Marks, L.

Melchett, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Elibank, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Merthyr, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hailsham, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Halifax, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

De La Warr, E.

Playfair, L.

Feversham, E.

Amulree, L.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Rennell, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Elton, L.

Rockley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Erskine, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Midleton, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Morton, E.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it would be convenient at this stage

803
to resume the House for a few moments in order that the statement to which I referred yesterday may be made. I beg to move, that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think your Lordships will desire to hear the statement—the identical statement—which has been made in another place by the Lord President of the Council:
"Ever since the War, successive Governments in this country have actively pursued a policy of international disarmament. In our efforts to further this policy by example as well as precept we have reduced our own armaments to a dangerously low level in the hope that others would follow our lead. But the disarmament negotiations have been drawn out longer than any one anticipated. The Preparatory Commission lasted from 1926 to December, 1930, inclusive. The Disarmament Conference opened on February find, 1932,' and has pursued its labours ever since. During these eight and a-half years misgivings have arisen from time to time in many quarters at the increasing accumulation of deficiencies in our Defence Services, particularly in view of the increased expenditure on armaments in many other countries.
"Most of the Leaders of all three Parties are familiar with the position in its general outline, not only from knowledge acquired while in office, but also from a Three-Party Conference on Disarmament in 1931, in the privacy of which all the facts of the situation were disclosed in confidence. The Government's policy remains one of international disarmament, and we have by no means abandoned hope of reaching some limitation. As mentioned in the debate on July 13, we are even now making fresh efforts to break the virtual deadlock that exists at Geneva. Unfortunately, however, particularly in view of past experience,
804
we cannot count on an early result, and in view of our commitments under the Covenant of the League and the Locarno Treaty, the many symptoms of unrest in Europe and elsewhere, and the failure of other Governments to follow our example by comparable reductions, we have for some time felt that the time has come when the possibility of keeping our armaments at their present low level must be reconsidered in the absence of comparable reductions by other Powers. This is a situation which I believe Leaders of all Parties have foreseen must sooner or later be reached.
"In the light of these considerations the whole question of Imperial Defence and the part to be played in it by the three Defence Services has been for some months under review by the Government. It is not necessary to-day to give any complete account of our inquiries or of the detailed conclusions at which we have arrived. The deficiencies which it will be necessary to make good are largely deficiencies in equipment and stores which, as I mentioned in my speech on March 21"—
it is the Lord President of the Council speaking—
"have grown up owing to financial stringency and the discussions on disarmament. In these respects the results of our inquiries will be reflected in the Estimates for future years, and can be more conveniently discussed when those Estimates are debated.
"So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, however, the position is rather different. Here it is a case of the need for further development, which has time and again been postponed, in addition to the need for making good deficiencies. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot delay any longer measures which will in the course of the next few years bring our Air forces to a level more closely approaching that of our nearest neighbours. Moreover, in the case of the Royal Air Force specific undertakings have been given that an announcement will be made before the end of the present Session. Before coming to the programme we have decided to adopt, I would emphasise that many factors which have influenced our decision are

805
still fluctuating and liable to change. This applies equally to the future of disarmament and the whole international situation. Consequently our defensive position will have to be kept constantly under review, and we reserve the right to modify or adjust the programme in the light of new factors that may arise.
"Subject to this caveat, we have decided on a programme covering the present and the four ensuing years under which the Royal Air Force will be increased by 41 new squadrons, including those already announced in the 1934 programme. Of these 41 squadrons 33 will be allotted to Home Defence, raising the existing 42 squadrons at home to a total of 75 squadrons. The remaining squadrons are for service with the Fleet Air Arm or abroad. The rate at which this programme can be carried out within the five years must depend upon various considerations, including finance, which I cannot specify now. We hope, however, so to space out the work as not to make an unmanageable addition to the Estimates in any one year."

MILK BILL.
VISCONT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Milk Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[House in Committee accordingly:]
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Payments for securing pure milk supply]:
EARL DE LA WARR: The next two Amendments standing in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("scheme") and insert ("schemes approved by him which are")
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("such scheme") and insert ("milk marketing scheme approved by him ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), immediately before the last paragraph, to insert:
"Provided that before the day appointed under subsection (1) of this section as the beginning of the period of four years mentioned in that subsection the boards administering any milk scheme for the time being in force shall cause a poll of registered producers to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, relating to the amendment of schemes on the question of whether the boards shall accept the liability to make-the payments mentioned in this subsection and unless the result of such poll is in favour of the boards accepting such liability no order shall be made under this subsection."
The noble Lord said: I really argued this Amendment on the Amendment which stood in my name earlier on the Paper. On that occasion I endeavoured to point out the impropriety of compelling the producers who had agreed to a limited liability scheme to accept without reference to them the implications and obligations of an unlimited liability scheme. I did not then divide the Committee, because there did not seem to be sufficient support for my argument. Here we have an alternative which will enable the producers to be given the opportunity of going to the poll to state before any subsidy moneys are paid on their behalf whether they will or will not accept the subsidy moneys together with the unlimited liability which is the corollary of them, or whether they will forego subsidy moneys rather than accept the unlimited liability. This is a variant of the Amendment which was moved in another place and which sought to give the producers the opportunity of this poll after they had received the subsidy money and before they became liable. That was obviously not a very acceptable proposal to the Minister or the House. This Amendment, on the other hand, proposes to give them the opportunity of expressing an opinion before they have received the subsidy moneys. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It would completely destroy all sense of continuity in the scheme. It would mean that liabilities would be entered into and farmers would be persuaded to go to

807
very considerable expense and trouble in obtaining a tuberculosis free herd and then, at the end of it all, they would find that the scheme was not being continued. It would really mean that the £750,000 which the Government have put up would be virtually wasted on an abortive scheme.
LORD HASTINGS: I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl. Having lost the first Amendment I think it would be better to withdraw this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) No arrangement or order made under this section shall impose upon any council of an administrative county or upon any local authority any obligation to make any payment or incur any financial liability for the purposes of this section."
The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment partly to elicit information from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and partly for the protection of the county councils. If I understand the noble Earl aright, he is in a position to tell me that the accredited herds are not influenced or do not come under this Bill in any shape or form, and no money is provided for them in this Bill either. In fact we might never have heard of accredited herds so far as this Bill is concerned. That is one point as to which I wanted information. Probably also the noble Earl is able to say that no arrangement or order made under this scheme can impose upon any council any obligation to make any payment and if that is so there is no point in my pressing my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Phillimore.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Amendment of 12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 54]
LORD. CRANWORTH: I can only express my apologies to the noble Earl for not being present for my previous Amendment. I understand his reply to that was thoroughly satisfactory, and in those circumstances I will, with your
808
Lordships' leave, not move the Amendment I had put down to this clause.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Extension of functions of milk marketing boards.
(3) The board administering any milk marketing scheme may from time to time determine the places or areas at or within which milk produced in the area to which the scheme applies, or any description or quantity of milk so produced, may be sold or offered for sale by any registered producer, and the provisions of the scheme which relate to penalties shall apply with respect to any determination of the board under this subsection as they apply with respect to determinations of the board under the scheme which regulate sales of milk.
Provided that no determination shall be made under this subsection by any board except after consultation with such a committee as the Minister may have approved for the purpose as representing the interests of purchasers of milk by wholesale.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "determine" down to, but not including the proviso, and insert:
"the places or areas at, to or within which milk produced in the area to which the scheme applies, or any description or quantity of milk so produced, may be sold, or offered or consigned for sale, or delivered on sale, by any registered producer, and if any registered producer deals with any milk in contravention of any determination made by the board under this subsection, then, subject to any provisions of the scheme which prescribe procedure in connection with the imposition and recovery of penalties, the board shall impose on, and recover from, that producer such monetary penalty as the board think just, not exceeding one hundred pounds or such greater maximum sum (if any) as may be prescribed by the scheme in relation to such a contravention as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: This is quite a simple Amendment. The first part of it is in order to bring in the word "consigned" the absence of which left a considerable hole in the scheme. The second part deals with the penalties. At first we thought we could manage it by legislative reference back to the original Act, but we found we could not and, therefore, we have inserted the specific penalty, which is the same amount as before.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 4, leave out from ("determine") to the end of line 12 and insert the said now words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to omit the proviso in subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment I desire to press very strongly. Your Lordships will observe that in this subsection no determination shall be made by any board except after consultation with such committee as the Minister may have approved for the purpose as representing the interests of purchasers of milk by wholesale. This subsection grants complete control over the production and retailing of milk. The Milk Board can diminish the amount of milk produced in the area, it can diminish or even eliminate the amount; of milk sold in the area. Those powers have nothing whatever to do with the interests representing purchasers of milk of wholesale. The great distributing companies ought not to be allowed to have any finger in this particular pie. Why do they want it? It pays the distributing companies to promote a glut of milk in any area because it cheapens the price to them, and the whole purpose of this particular subsection would be to limit production to the requirements of the area and to limit the area within which that production can be sold. There can be no conceivable reason why the interests of the purchasers of milk by wholesale should be admitted here and those concerned with the producers' interests strongly resent this proviso. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 13, leave out lines 13 to 17.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am aware that certain farming interests are worried at the insertion of this particular provision in the Bill, but I think that they are under a misunderstanding. At the present moment they have certain very strong powers of determining how milk shall be sold. Under the Act of 1931, Section 5 (e), it will be found that the Board can determine the persons to whom milk can be sold. That might theoretically give them full control, but it does not do so in fact. Therefore we want this addition to the powers of the Board. The Board are given power completely to divert milk now from one
810
area to another. The noble Lord questions the reason for bringing manufacturers into this. A manufacturer with a milk factory in a certain district could be completely deprived of supplies of milk by the Board acting in an unreasonable manner. Of course we do not anticipate that they will act unreasonably, but surely it is not asking very much of the Board to be prepared to discuss with the distributors before taking any decision. The ultimate decision is left in their hands. Most of us who are reasonable people are prepared to go into a great deal of consultation provided we have the last word left to us.
I know what is the real fear. The real fear is that the distributors may operate this subsection unreasonably and may be continually and unreasonably asking for consultation. But just as it must be assumed that the Milk Marketing Board is composed of reasonable men we must assume that distributors will be reasonable men. They are just as busy as the Milk Marketing Board and they will not want to be engaged in eternal consultations. I can give an undertaking on the part of the Minister himself that if it is found that the milk distributing interests are unreasonable we should be prepared to use all the influence we have to make it clear to them that this power was given them to operate reasonably and not to operate unreasonably. I hope the noble Lord, in spite of his strong feeling, will not press this Amendment but will accept the assurance of the Minister that he will do everything possible to see that this is operated reasonably.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I speak on behalf of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, whose position is a little different from that of the English Board in regard to this proviso. We have at the present moment in Scotland a joint committee of distributors and other interests and any matter of the movement of milk can be discussed if necessary. As I read the proviso it appears to wipe out all the powers given under the clause. The clause gives to the Board practically no powers which they have not got already and which they have not exercised in the past year in reference to transfers of milk. Most transfers of milk are done by agreement at the present time. Only

811
this week the Scottish Board was requested by a large distributor in Glasgow to change the destination of a matter of 500 gallons of milk a day because the Glasgow fair holidays were taking place and he could not get rid of the milk. The whole transaction was done by wire or telephone and the milk was diverted to manufacturers. As I read the proviso it would prevent a transaction of that sort without, possibly, consultation with a committee. If every such transaction had to be referred to a committee the Board could not carry on unless the committee was sitting permanently. I have been assured by some of the permanent officials that my view is not correct, but I cannot see it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Earl really answered his own point when he said that the Board already possessed powers. It must be made quite clear that in so far as they have existing powers they do not come under the proviso at all.
THE EARL OF STAIR: At present we have a case of transfer of that sort before a committee of investigation in Edinburgh, and I understand this proviso was put in because of objection from one of the large manufacturing interests to our giving a supply from one place instead of another.
EARL DE LA WARR: There will be two ways of operating. The first is under the existing law. If that is done no alteration is made whatsoever. If producers are not satisfied with the powers they have under the existing law they are given much stronger powers under this Bill. But if they operate under these new powers they will have to grant consultation to the distributors. Considering the extent of these powers I think it is only reasonable that the producers should be prepared to discuss with the men whom they are going to deprive of milk. There are the powers of a machine gun in this case. Surely, when you point a machine gun at a man you might discuss with him before you shoot.
LORD STRACHIE: I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment. It does not seem to me that the noble Earl has given any reason for this special protection of the wholesale purchaser. We have had sufficient experience of the advan-
812
tages given to wholesale purchasers. We know how producers under the milk scheme had fixed for them the prices at which they might sell, while, on the other hand, the distributors were left to charge whatever price they liked. In some cases that had a very detrimental effect on the small man who retails milk. We ought to be very careful not to give further powers to committees for the benefit of the purchaser. The Minister always seems more anxious to look after the interests of the purchaser than the interests of the producer. I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hesitate to intrude in this debate among experts and I only do so in order to ask a question about a matter which I think is left a little in doubt. I am not sure that I heard all the arguments of the noble Earl and so I may be covering ground which has been already covered. I only wish to ask for information on one point. The proviso, I take it, docs not mean that the committee to be appointed must approve. Some observations which have been made were somewhat misleading in that respect I think, because it was suggested that unless the committee approved nothing could be done. I do not so read it. I am only-speaking of the language of the proviso. It is, in effect, that there shall be a consultation with the Board, that is, that nothing shall be done by the Board except after consultation with the committee appointed. That does not mean that the committee must approve. What it means is that there must be consultation.
It may still be said—it was said by the noble Lord who spoke just now for Scotland—that that would mean that there would have to be a committee always sitting. I do not know whether that is true, but of course if it is it would be a very serious objection. I would like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill, or the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, to give us some information upon that point. As it strikes me, if it merely means that all that is to happen is that there must be consultation with the committee appointed, and assuming that it does not entail a committee continuously sitting but only called together when occasion arises for the exercise by

813
the Board of some of these powers, that is a totally different matter. One course would no doubt be somewhat impracticable as it appears to me, that is to say, if you had had to have the committee always, sitting; but apart from the merits of the questions, into which I do not eater, I really do not see the difficulty if all that is to happen is that the committee appointed should be consulted before the Board puts into operation the powers given to it. I really would like some information, because I am in a difficulty as to which way to vote if there is a Division.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Marquess is quite right. I am sorry if I did not make myself heard just now. It is purely a matter of consultation. My own view of what will actually happen is that in general, the day to day management of this concern will be carried on under the powers of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, without any question of consultation coming in. But there will be certain cases when there is to be rather a major control of a very large section of the milk of this country, and it is then that complications may arise; and when those complications arise of course they will have to be settled in consultation with this committee.
THE MABQUESS OF READING: Not settled in consultation?
EARL DE LA WARR: Settled after consultation.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is a vital difference. There must be a consultation, but the point is that after the consultation the Board can go on notwithstanding that the committee does not agree. That is the vital point.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I had not intended to intervene, in this discussion, but it seems to me that we have missed, or are apt to miss, the point. As I understand, we all agree on the principle of consultation, but the point is that in the instance which the noble Earl, Lord Stair, gave there would not have been time to consult; the whole deal would have been lost. If you have got to have a consultation every time a case is brought forward, you will have to have that committee sitting the whole time, or practically so. To my mind it is that which is of the essence of the question; it is a question of time.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but may I point out that cases such as those which the noble Earl, Lord Stair, has instanced are already being carried out under the existing powers without any need of consultation? It if when the additional powers conferred by this. Bill are brought into question that consultation is provided for.
LORD HASTINGS: I deeply regret that I am quite unable to withdraw this Amendment. Those who have been responsible for the framing of the Amendment have framed it after being pressed thereto very strongly by all the interests concerned. There is no doubt at all in their minds or in our minds that this is a grave, gross, and wholly unnecessary spoke to put into the wheel of the simple and easy working of this Board. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has drawn the attention of the Committee to the word "consultation," but he better than anyone will know perfectly well that when you give to a body the right to be consulted, that body considers that after it has been consulted its opinion has got to be taken. There would be very serious and sad trouble if its opinion were discarded after having been obtained. I think that must be so, and the experience of this particular body of persons has gone to show that this is their view of the matter. I am afraid I cannot withdraw the Amendment, and I shall have to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
LORD MERRIVALE: As there is no member of the Government present who speaks with legal experience, I hope I may be allowed to say that I do not think any lawyer would have any doubt that the noble Marquess is absolutely right when he says that the obligation to consult does not involve or entail any obligation to accept an opinion which is offered. (When I rose I had not observed that the Leader of the House was present; I was not able to find him.) The only possible obligation is to consider it before determining the question, and as between honest people one is perfectly certain that would be done. That is all I wanted to say.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Marks, L.

Melchett, L.

Argyll, D.

Elibank, V.

Merrivale, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Merthyr, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Hailsham, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Halifax, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Playfair, L.

Amulree, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Buxton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rennell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Feversham, E.

Denman, L.

Rockley, L.

Iveagh, E.

Elton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gage, L. (F. Gage.) [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Midleton, E.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L.

Morton, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Onslow, E.

Kilmaine, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Palmer, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Rathcreedan, L.

Airlie, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Remnant, L.

Denbigh, E.

Marley, L.

Sanderson, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Middleton, L.

Snell, L.

Strafford, E.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Strabolgi, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Strachie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
". All orders made under this Act shall he laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat next after the order is laid before it praying that the order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order. If the Session of Parliament ends before such forty days as aforesaid have expired, the order shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next Session as if it had not previously been laid."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment can be explained very shortly; it simply is that all orders should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. In moving my first Amendment I said to the noble Earl that I did not so much want to press it if I could have an assurance from him that orders would be laid, but he could give me no assurance at all upon that matter. I cannot understand why it is that in this Bill, for the first time in the many Bills coming from the Ministry of Agriculture, it is not provided that all orders and regulations shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I remember very well in previous
816
Parliaments that Lord Salisbury, when Leader of the House or when he was leading the Opposition, constantly supported me in this matter, that orders should be laid, and I expect I shall have his support now if he is present.
Under Clause 3 the Minister may from time to time by order direct, etc. Now the noble Earl said, when I raised a question about the smallholder and the manufacture of cheese, that it was better to leave it entirely to the Minister to make an order. I have no objection to the Minister making an order, if it comes before both Houses of Parliament, because if the smallholder is not properly treated it will be for Parliament to say that the order of the Minister is not fair and that the smallholder ought to be encouraged to make cheese. The general feeling in the country is that we should do everything we can to encourage cheese being made, in' order to keep up this large supply of milk which is to be used for manufacturing purposes. I see in Clause 9 the curious statement made that particulars of the arrangements made by the Minister of Agriculture are to be laid before each House of Parliament. Why are only particulars of arrangements, and not orders, to be laid? It seems a very curious thing indeed. What is the objection to laying orders? It will be interesting to hear from the noble Earl what is the real objection. If

817
orders are good in themselves then there can be no objection, because the House will not take an adverse view.
It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that many orders have to be laid, and it is very rarely that they are objected to. The reason is that the Departments are careful to draw up orders which are reasonable, so that the House shall not object to them. There is one objection, and I think the strongest of all, to this procedure by orders without the approval of Parliament. The Lord Chief Justice not long ago said, with regard to orders, that they were constantly being made by Ministers, who were thus given too much executive power. He said, in effect, that his objection was to a Minister having power to impose liability on the subject by order, and not by any Act of Parliament. That is what is going to happen in the present case, and I cannot see what particular reason there is why the old practice of requiring the approval of Parliament should be departed from. I shall press this Amendment, because I
Clause 13:
Interpretation.
(2) For the purposes of this Act a farm shall be deemed to include the farm house
think the Bill, as drafted, interferes with the rights of Parliament in this matter.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I fully understand the object of the noble Lord in bringing up this matter, but if he looks into the clauses under which orders have to be made he will see that in each case it is only a question of laying down administrative details, how to carry out principles which have had full discussion in the House. In those circumstances I do not think your Lordships would desire that they should be subject to the approval of Parliament.
LORD STRACHIE: If the orders were desirable, nobody would want to discuss them. My only object is not to give this power, which the Lord Chief Justice has said is so objectionable, of doing by orders what should be done by legislation.
On Question, Whether the said new-clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Phillimore, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Buxton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Onslow, E.

Denman, L.

Stanmore, L.

Strafford, E.

Merthyr, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Elibank, V.

Kilmaine, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Marks, L.

Argyll, D.

Hailsham, V.

Marley, L.

Halifax, V.

Merrivale, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Alvingham, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Amulree, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Arnold, L.

Palmer, L.

Airlie, E.

Biddulph, L.

Remnant, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Rennell, L.

Denbigh, E.

de Clifford, L.

Rockley, L.

Feversham, E.

Elton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Iveagh, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greville, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Snell, L.

Midleton, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Jessel, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

and all buildings occupied together with the farm.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), at the end, to insert, "but not to include any premises which are for the time being approved as manufacturing premises by the Board administering

819
a milk marketing scheme." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment, and is merely an alteration of the definition. At the present time a certain kind of small factory on a dairy farm would not be defined as a farm cheese maker or as a factory, and this makes the definition right.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be again put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [Amendment as to use of vehicles on special occasions]
THE EABL OF PLYMOUTH: The first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("a") and insert ("the ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Arrangements between members of societies for carnage in motor vehicles]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 27, leave out ("had been") and insert ("were").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Amendment as to public sittings of Traffic, Commissioners]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There is another drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("of greater frequency than six") and insert ("operated
820
on more than six days").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 26, to insert the following new clause:
Interpretation of certain provisions of s. 90 of the principal Act.
". For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the powers conferred on a local authority by subsections (2) and (3) of Section ninety of the principal Act (which relate to the appointment of a parking place as a station for public service vehicles and confer amongst other powers a power to make certain charges) are in addition to and not in substitution for the powers conferred on a local authority by Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act 1925 (which relates to the provision of parking places and confers amongst other powers a power to make regulations as to certain charges) and that the local authority shall have power to make reasonable charges for the use of a parking place as a station for public service vehicles in addition to the charges for accommodation referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section 90 of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to remove doubts which have arisen as to the application of certain sections of the Public Health Act, 1925, and the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in regard to the use of a station adapted by a local authority for the purpose of receiving public service vehicles. Section 68 of the Public Health Act, 1925, provides that:
"Whore for the purpose of relieving or preventing congestion of traffic it appears to the local authority to be necessary to provide within their district suitable parking places for vehicles, the local authority may provide such parking places …."
and that they may acquire land suitable for that purpose, and utilise any lands which may lawfully be appropriated for the purpose, subject to certain restrictions.
Subsection (6) says:
"A local authority may make regulations as to the use of parking places …."
and other matters, including
"the charges to be paid to the local authority in connection with the use of any parking place not being part of a street."
Subsection (7) says that in the case of any vehicle using a parking place the driver may not ply for hire. The definition of a "parking place" is:
"a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any particular class or description, may wait."

821
It is obvious therefore that under the Public Health Act, 1925, the powers of the local authority to provide parking places apply to places where vehicles may wait but may not ply for hire, and further that they may make charges for the use of the parking place where the parking place is on private land or owned by the local authority, and not in a street.
That was altered by Section 90 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The Act of 1925 referred to vehicles generally. The Act of 1930 introduced a classification of vehicles, and Section 90 deals with public service vehicles. It enables the local authority to make provision for appointing parking places as stations for such vehicle, and also declares that public service vehicles may, in the discretion of the local authority, ply for hire in such a parking place. It goes on to provide that they may, with the consent of the Minister, adapt the parking place for use as a station for public service vehicles
"and in particular provide and maintain waiting rooms, ticket offices and lavatories and other similar accommodation, in connection therewith."
Further they may make reasonable charges for the use of any accommodation so provided.
The question that arises is this. Where a local authority has provided private land or adapted private land as a parking place, as a station for the use of these public service vehicles, can they make any charge for such adaptation? It is obvious that they have no power in Section 90 to make such a charge, because a charge is only authorised by that section for the use of waiting rooms, ticket offices, and similar accommodation. It has been contended that there is power under the previous Act, the Public Health Act of 1925, to make a charge. On the other hand it is contended that the only charge that can be made is for the use of a parking place as a place to wait and not as a station for picking up passengers. In these circumstances, where local authorities have gone to the expense of providing a station, and these public service vehicles are making use of this station, it is only reasonable that the local authority should make a charge.
The matter is not without authority. The Cardiff Corporation Bill was before
822
Parliament this Session, and the question arose there. It was contended that the existing provisions were sufficiently clear and that there was no necessity to insert any special provision giving the Corporation power to make a charge, but after argument the Committee found there was sufficient doubt, on the subject and they inserted a provision authorising a charge to be made. It is the same point which is raised by this Amendment, which I am moving on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has put down an Amendment to my Amendment providing that a reasonable charge may be made for a parking place "not being part of a street." My noble friend Lord Mount Temple suggests certain Amendments too, but I think he agrees that there should not be power to make a charge where a station is in a public street, and I understand he is satisfied with the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: As I think the Minister in charge of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and myself are in substantial agreement, I shall be extremely brief. It is a matter of some importance which has been raised by my noble friend. In the beginning of his Amendment he says that the Act of 1930 shall be in addition and not in substitution for the Act of 1925, and I think it is very important that this should be made clear. As to the other point, it is this: Shall or shall not the local authorities have power to make a charge for the use of a parking place when that parking place is on a public highway? It seems to me quite obvious that that power should not be given. I understand the noble Earl in charge of the Bill agrees with that, and that the point will be made clear. There is a substantial business reason why they should not take money for private vehicles in a public parking place. If they take money the local authority would be liable for anything that is stolen from the cars, and therefore they would assume a very great responsibility. As to the last point—namely, that public service vehicles should be compelled to pay a small fee for the use of these

823
parking places—that may be all right, but I think it might leave the local authority again open to a civil action if anything was stolen from the public service vehicles while these vehicles were changing passengers at the station. That, after all, is a matter for the local authorities, and I do not press it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved in the proposed new clause, after "parking place," to insert "not being part of a street." The noble Earl said: The noble Lord explained very clearly the object of this Amendment, and it requires very few words from me to make clear our attitude in regard to it. The Amendment I am moving now is in line 13, after "parking place," to insert "not being part of a street." The noble Lord (Lord Mount Temple) has said that one of the points at issue in connection with this particular Amendment is whether or not a local authority should be allowed to make a charge for the use of stations which form part of a public highway, and we are in entire agreement that it is undesirable that they should be allowed to do so. My Amendment is moved with that object. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has not moved his Amendment I need say very little. The purpose of the Amendment he put down was to prohibit a local authority from making a charge in respect of the use of a coach station by a coach which merely comes into the station for the purpose of setting down and picking up passengers, and which does not remain in the station for any longer period than is necessary for that purpose.
I am advised that this power is inherent in the statutory provisions as they stand, and the declaratory clause is necessitated solely by the action of Parliament in inserting a special provision in this sense in the Cardiff Corporation Bill, which leaves some risk of its being interpreted that the powers under the existing law extend only to the making of a charge where a station is used as a parking place and not merely as a point for the picking up and setting down of passengers. If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, had been passed the effect would have been the reverse of what is proposed by Lord Amulree, and instead of making clear the powers of local authorities to
824
charge for the use of stations as such, it would have destroyed those powers and left them merely the power to charge for parking places. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Amulree, together with my small Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 13, after ("parking place") insert ("not being part of a street").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Licences of drivers of heavy goods vehicles.
(12) In this section the expression "licence" means a licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle granted under this section, and the expression "heavy goods vehicle" means a vehicle of any of the following classes which is constructed or adapted for hauling or carrying goods or burden of any description, that is to say, a heavy locomotive, a light locomotive, a motor tractor, a heavy motor-car and a motor-car so constructed that a trailer may by partial superimposition be attached thereto in such a manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne thereby.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 35, leave out from the first ("Act") to ("for") in line 36.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved, in subsection (12), to omit all words after "heavy motor car and a" and to insert "heavy articulated vehicle which consists of a motor car and trailer so constructed that the trailer is by partial superimposition attached to the motor car in such a manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne by the motor car, the total weight of the articulated vehicle so constructed being greater than four tons unladen." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Earl Howe I beg to move this Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to draw a distinction between the heavy articulated vehicle and the light articulated vehicle,

825
and to limit the application of the clause requiring a special licence to the drivers of the heavy vehicles. As the clause stands, the last four lines in sub section (12) would make the requirements for a special driver's licence apply to all classes of articulated vehicles. There are many such vehicles in ordinary use with weight considerably less than two and a-half tons, and they are capable of being driven as easily and as safely as any other design of vehicle of the same weight on four or six wheels.
This point was raised in Standing Committee in another place on June 5, when an Amendment was moved extending the clause to articulated vehicles, and the Minister made objection to the form of Amendment exempting a light articulated vehicle. The Amendment has now been redrafted to try to meet that objection. The Amendment now proposed makes it clear that the special driver's licence will be required when the complete articulated vehicle weighs over four tons, but a vehicle of less than that weight will rank in the light vehicle class. It must be remembered that under the clause as it stands a goods vehicle weighing under two and a-half tons unladen and drawing a trailer may be driven by a driver without the special licence which is proposed by this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 3, leave out from the first ("a") to the end of line 6, and insert the said new words.—[Lord de Clifford.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As a matter of fact as far as I know there has been no challenge of the proposal that the driver of a heavy motor car—that is a vehicle of over two and a-half tons unladen—should require the special vocational licence. Under the present Amendment the special licence will still be required if the drawing part of the vehicle is over two and a-half tons. The Amendment is clearly designed to meet the case of the relatively light drawing vehicle with a trailer exceeding one and a-half tons unladen weight although the total unladen weight is not to exceed four tons. The reason which led the Minister to require the driver of the light articulated vehicle to hold the vocational licence is that light drawing vehicles are used today to draw heavy loads, such as a 1,000 gallon tank, which weighs over three tons
826
when filled; and the driving of such a combination, with a light drawing vehicle and a heavy load behind, calls for a very special degree of skill. I understand that this point is going to be raised by the British Road Federation, of which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is Chairman, with the Minister at an interview to-morrow, but it might perhaps shorten discussion on this and other similar Amendments to-day if I made a quite short general statement with regard to the position.
I would like to say that it is not intended that the present classification of vehicles for taxation and speed purposes is to be stereotyped for all time, and the Minister will be led in future, as his predecessors have been in the past, to give the fullest consideration to reasoned proposals of the industry for further modification of the Schedules, or, indeed, for their recasting on different lines. I understand that the Minister has received an indication that the organisations representing the industry are themselves considering the desirability and the possibility of adopting bases of classification quite different from the present bases, but I am informed that these proposals are at present in quite a preliminary stage. The Minister, therefore, cannot here and now adopt piecemeal Amendments of the existing classification which may well run counter to the proposals put before him by the industry in the near future. In any case we are really dealing with a very complicated and a somewhat new problem in connection with this type of vehicle, and I would suggest to your Lordships that for that reason it is the more necessary that we should proceed cautiously in this matter and not legislate, or even by regulation prejudge the case with regard to which we are not completely informed at the present moment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to add to subsection (12): "and a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods (not being a vehicle classified as a motor car under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act) and the weight of which unladen exceeds one ton ten hundredweights." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to extend these licences to lorries of

827
unladen weight of one and a half tons and over instead of two and a half tons. It is designed purely in the interests of safety. A lorry built three years ago is practically obsolete to-day in its performance. Present day lorries of well under two and a half tons can draw a heavy load of four tons at a very high speed, and it is felt by the drivers of these vehicles themselves and by the Transport and General Workers Union that this Amendment is necessary in the interests of safety. I therefore venture to hope that the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am a little surprised that the noble Earl opposite should say that this Amendment is designed purely in the interests of safety. Let me in a few words explain the position as it is at present. In the case of vehicles over two and a half tons the age limit is already twenty-one years, and drivers of these vehicles will require the new type of vocational licence. I am now dealing with the noble Earl's two Amendments which really are in fact connected. A person of seventeen years of age or more may drive a commercial goods vehicle of unladen weight less than two and a half tons. Of the 9,612 drivers involved in fatal road accidents in 1933, only 153 were drivers under twenty-one years in charge of motor vans and lorries. These are the figures in the Fatal Accidents Return. The present proposal has been discussed in some detail between representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Ministry, and I understand that the Union have suggested that past statistics are not a sure guide in view of the increasing tendency to build vehicles of high load capacity which come within the limit of two and a half tons unladen weight.
On the basis of the 1933 census, the total number of vehicles whose drivers will be subject to the new vocational licence as provided in the Bill is approximately 60,000. On the same census basis the additional number of drivers who would be affected by the proposed Amendment of the noble Earl are the drivers of some 110,000 vehicles. A large number of vehicles coming within this additional group are
828
genuinely light vehicles. Furthermore, the youthful and irresponsible driver is more frequently to be found in the case of the driver of the tradesman's delivery van of under 30 cwt. who would not be affected by this Amendment. The youthful and rash type of driver is found in this class of vehicle rather than in the heavier type of vehicle In these circumstances I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Earl referred to drivers of tradesmen's vans. He has put his finger, if I may say so, on the danger that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull was trying to remove. When the errand boy carried a basket and then went on a bicycle he was not so dangerous. Now the errand boy drives a fast, powerful motor vehicle and, though my noble friend's Amendment would not meet the whole of the case, it would at any rate prevent irresponsible youths from driving these modern fast heavy vehicles of a ton and a half and over. I cannot understand why, when we have a campaign waged by the Ministry of Transport itself at the present moment, a proposal put forward for greater safety on the roads from this side is rejected by the noble Earl.
On Question. Amendment negatived.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to add to the clause:
"() Subsection (1) of Section seventeen of the principal Act (which relates to requirements as to employment of drivers and attendants) shall apply to heavy motor cars as it applies to heavy locomotives and light locomotives, and the provisions of the said section shall have effect accordingly."
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, in his statement a few minutes ago on the question of future adjustments of special licences, said we should proceed cautiously, and it is in that spirit that I put down this Amendment. I owe the noble Earl an apology for not having put it down earlier. I had it ready but, through a misunderstanding, it did not reach the Table in time. I am sorry if I have inconvenienced the noble Earl or his advisers by the Amendment not having been printed sooner.
The present law is that locomotives—heavy locomotives and light locomotives—on the roads must have a second man as look-out and for the general assistance of the driver and for general safety. But a heavy motor vehicle of two and a-half tons and over, although subject to other

829
restrictions, is not required to have a second man on board. I would remind your Lordships that heavy locomotives have a speed as a rule of only a few miles an hour. I believe the fastest speed is only about eight miles an hour. Yet such a locomotive has to carry a second man. But these increasingly powerful speedy large heavy motor vehicles can go all over the country with only one man, who has no assistance in case of emergency, no look-out, no one to see that the cargo has not fallen off or to deal with any of the exigencies of the journey. The object of my Amendment is to ensure that a second man shall be on board. He need not necessarily be a driver. All that is asked for is for an extra man in the interests of safety to assist in the matters which I have mentioned. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the National Union of Railwaymen which has 10,000 members who are drivers of these big motor lorries on the road.
I will only trouble your Lordships with two figures to show the tremendous increase in fatalities and accidents on the roads caused by these heavy commercial vehicles, but they are very striking figures. In the last five years the deaths on the roads—what the new Minister of Transport has referred to as "mass murder"—caused by heavy commercial vehicles, the ones I am talking about, have increased by 23 per cent. Cases of injury have increased by 65 per cent, during the same period. Those are very remarkable figures, and I think it must be admitted that such a provision as I now propose would add something at any rate to the safety of these vehicles and prevent some of these accidents. In the case of motor vehicles drawing trailers a second man is required, but there is no such requirement in the case of a motor vehicle over two and a-half tons which is not drawing a trailer. The matter has been discussed before but we have been told that there have been negotiations. I hope that in view of those negotiations it may be possible to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, at end insert tho said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is for the reason that negotiations are still proceeding that I cannot accept this Amendment. It is really impossible for the Minister to accept piecemeal Amendments
830
of this kind when the whole matter is under immediate consideration and may be dealt with comprehensively in the comparatively near future. Furthermore, I honestly cannot see that the noble Lord opposite has produced any real reason why this Amendment should be accepted. He really has not made out his case. The position is that under Section 17 (1) of the principal Act road locomotives are required to carry two persons, who shall be employed in driving or attending the locomotive whilst being driven on any highway, and in addition an attendant for each trailer. Under Section 17 (2) an attendant is required in addition to the driver to be carried in cases where a heavy motor vehicle is drawing a trailer. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord does not think it necessary that the attendant should be able to drive, because I think it was argued in another place by one of his friends that the second man should be able to relieve the driver when he had driven for a reasonable period of time. The Amendment he has moved does not provide for that. It merely requires an attendant and not another driver. I hope, however, that in view of the fact that negotiations are proceeding and that it is possible that the matter will be dealt with comprehensively at a later stage, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Transitional provisions as to certain drivers' licences]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 7, leave out ("Section twenty-eight of this Act") and insert ("the last foregoing section ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Trials for manslaughter and dangerous driving.
". Upon the trial of a person who is indicted for manslaughter in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle by him, it shall be lawful for the jury, if they are satisfied that he is guilty of an offence

831
under Section eleven of the principal Act (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving) to find him guilty of that offence, whether or not the requirements of Section twenty-one of the principal Act (which relates to notice of prosecutions) have been satisfied as respects that offence."
The noble and learned Lord said: When the Bill was in Committee two days ago I ventured to explain that I had given Notice of two Amendments of which this was the major Amendment and the noble Earl was good enough to say, as I understood, that he would accept both. The minor Amendment was accepted and introduced into the Bill that day. It is sufficient in the circumstances for me to say now that the object of this clause is to simplify the proceedings where a casualty upon the road has been attended by loss of life and there is doubt whether the person who is involved in it, and is guilty of an offence, is guilty of manslaughter or only guilty of the minor offence of driving to the public danger. This Amendment will simplify the matter and will enable the case to be dealt with on the spot without complications which must have been introduced otherwise having regard to a recent decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30 insert the said new-clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Light signals (presumption of compliance with statutory requirements)]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 29, after ("deemed") insert ("to be of the prescribed size, colour, and type, or of another character authorised by the Minister under Section forty-eight of the principal Act and").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:
Publication of the Highway Code.
". Notwithstanding the law of copyright or any like privilege or custom the Highway Code may be published by any
832
person without the grant of a licence for that purpose or the payment of any fee."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to try to get the Highway Code taken out of Crown copyright. One of the greatest factors making for safety would be, I submit to your Lordship, that the Highway Code should be known by every single person who uses the roads. I understand that the Code is being redrafted. My submission is that the widest possible publicity should be given to the Code and I think that if it is withdrawn from Crown copyright, and one might almost say taken out of the red tape of a Government Department, some publishers would issue it in an attractive form. It is in order that wider publicity to all the statements contained in this document shall be given that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said newclause.—(Lord de Clifford.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I only want to say as a preliminary that it is after all the general duty of the citizen to be acquainted with every Act of Parliament which may concern him. The Legislature has never yet given a general permission to private citizens to publish Acts of Parliament, and the reason for that is that there is undoubtedly a risk of inaccurate reproduction of Statutes by people who are not at all responsible. I think the same principle ought to apply in the case of Statutory Rules and Orders. Although the Highway Code does not technically form part of the body of Statutory Rules and Orders it is a Code published by the authority of Parliament and has certain legal effect. I want to assure the House that it will be the policy of the Minister to allow any responsible person to reproduce the Highway Code, and to take steps to give him that permission without delay, but I do think there is some objection to giving a general consent to the reproduction of such a code as that, which might easily enable garbled versions of it to be reproduced with the object of advertisement and for suchlike purposes. I think that that is a risk against which we ought to guard. I hope that with the assurance which I have been able to give the noble Lord

833
will be content and that he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: In the circumstances I shall be only too pleased to withdraw the Amendment, and I hope that great notice will be taken of two words in the noble Earl's speech. When an application is made for permission to publish the Highway Code I hope the attention of the Department will be directed to the words "without delay."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved to insert after Clause 33:
".— (1) It shall not be lawful to sell, offer for sale or supply a motor vehicle or trailer for use on the road, if the use thereof on a road would be unlawful under Section 3 (1) of the principal Act.
(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is sold, offered for sale or supplied in contravention of this suction, any person who so sells, offers for sale or supplies the same or causes or permits the same to be so sold, offered for sale or supplied, shall he guilty of an offence under the (principal Act. The expression ' person ' in this subsection shall include a body corporate.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the bonâ fide sale, offer for sale or supply of any motor vehicle or trailer for export from Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: I know your Lordships will all regret, and certainly nobody will regret more than I, that you are not to have the advantage of hearing this (as I think) fairly important Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, who speaks with such very great and deserved authority on all matters affecting tie public health. Unfortunately Lord Horder is not able to be present, and in his absence I can only attempt to explain as briefly and as clearly as possible this Amendment, with which I venture to think as soon as your Lordships have read it most if not all of you will find yourselves in sympathy. The object of the Amendment is to reduce the dangerous public nuisance of the excessively noisy exhaust of the motor car or motor cycle. The facts of the present position are simple but I venture to think rather startling. It is already illegal to use on the roads a motor vehicle with an inefficient silencer, but it is not illegal to supply such a vehicle. Consequently the purpose of this Amendment is to make it henceforth illegal to supply what it is already illegal to use.
The principal Act, the, Road Traffic Act, 1930, empowered the Minister of Transport to draw up regulations for the construction and equipment of motor vehicles. One of those regulations—I think it is Regulation 16 of 1931, but I spare your Lordships its technical language—did in effect provide that motor vehicles should be equipped with efficient silencers. That is a very reasonable regulation, as I think your Lordships will agree, and I spare your Lordships any argument as to the threat to the public temper, nerves, and health of the constant roar of the unsilenccd exhaust very often through the whole of the twenty-four hours of the day. Unfortunately this reasonable regulation has in fact become a dead letter. It is openly, constantly and deliberately flouted, and under the anomaly of the existing law must be flouted. The user of a vehicle with an illegal silencer may be brought into court, and theoretically on the first conviction be may be fined (I think) £20, and on the second conviction £50 with the alternative of three months imprisonment. But what happens? He has only to satisfy the court that he has bought in all good faith the standard production of a well-known firm publicly, regularly and without restriction exhibited for sale, and although I believe that defence is not good in law, very few magistrates are likely to impose a deterrent sentence on one who is obviously so innocent a defendant. Meanwhile the manufacturers remain entirely immune from the operation of the law.
May I upon that point—and I have only a few more points to put and shall be very brief—refer to a letter which appeared in The Times of September 9, 1933, written by a manufacturer and one of the principal suppliers of silencers to motor car manufacturers? I am not quoting his exact words, but he said in effect that he received daily proof of the fact that there was a consistent demand among purchasers of sports cars for unnecessary noise, and that in effect the silenced sports car was unsaleable. If I may interpolate, I need perhaps hardly remind your Lordships that with the public which purchases sports cars and sports motor bicycles it is a very great attraction that the noise of the exhaust of the sports car, which is made for use on the road, should as closely as

835
possible resemble the noise of the exhaust of the racing car, which is made for use on the racing track.
The letter went on to say that in order to meet that constant demand for noise the firm of the writer was manufacturing what he called "partial silencers"— which in the context obviously meant silencers which were not silencers at all—to the tune of thousands a year, and that in spite of the fact that there is, so the writer said, no mechanical difficulty in making efficient silencers and in spite of the fact that efficient silencers are no more expensive to make. He finally ended up by deploring the fact that this should be the case, but suggested that manufacturers could not be blamed for meeting what no doubt was an illegal but nevertheless was a very consistent demand. I do not know what your Lordships think about the logic of that last contention, or whether it would be a satisfactory defence to a prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act to say that there was a consistent public demand for cocaine.
In face of these facts I suggest that this Amendment is a simple and obvious solution of the problem. It proposes to make it illegal to supply that which it is illegal to use, and it is not very easy to see what are the arguments against such a proposal. I say that after having read with considerable care the arguments advanced in another place by the Minister of Transport, which were, firstly, that it would be unenforcible, and secondly, that some of the offending manufacturers, who are of course only a small minority, would dislike the passage of this Amendment so much that they would not in future be likely to co-operate with the Minister in reducing this nuisance by agreement. I think there is some inconsistency there. It is no doubt true that a small minority of manufacturers would dislike the passing of this Amendment, but I think the reason they would dislike it is that they believe, and rightly believe, that it would be in fact enforcible.
The reasons the Minister gave for thinking that it would be unenforcible very largely rested on the fact that it could not be enforced unless powers of inspection were given. The Police at present have no special powers of inspection to enable them to prosecute the user of an
836
illegal silencer, and one cannot help thinking, as a layman, that it ought to be fairly easy to secure the inspection of an article which is regularly and publicly exposed for sale. Even if it is necessary, to secure prosecutions, to give powers of inspection to the Police, is not that rather an argument for giving such powers of inspection than for continuing to allow it to be legal to supply that which it is illegal to use? We have heard it said in the course of debate that it is undesirable to enact that which you cannot enforce. That is an argument with which I entirely agree, and I cannot help thinking that if it is not to be illegal to supply these things which are illegal to use, then perhaps it is to be regretted that it has been made illegal to use them.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Elton.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am in sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. The noise on the roads is often intolerable. I think one reason for interfering with silencers is that you may get a little more speed out of the car, and the second is that you appear to be going faster. In regard to the inspection by police of cars, I do not know exactly what the law is at the moment, but certainly police officers can pull you up in the street and examine your car. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this is really a very complicated matter, and I do not think the solution is quite as easy as is suggested. I think the Government have already shown great sympathy with the sentiments which have prompted the movers to put this Amendment on the Paper, and they view with great concern what is admittedly the unsatisfactory position which obtains at present with regard to the enforcement of the law in these cases. Perhaps I might explain a little further. The Minister, in accordance with assurances given by his predecessor in another place, has taken steps to appoint, jointly with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, a special Committee to investigate the question of noise arising in the use of motor vehicles and he is pressing for an early report by

837
that Committee, which will have at its disposal the facilities of the National Physical Laboratory. The present difficulty of enforcement is largely due to the lack of practical means of quantitative measurement of noise, and the special Committee are being asked to give particular consideration to this point. The Minister is glad to acknowledge the readiness of the motor manufacturing industry to co-operate in this work. So soon as definite and adequate "performance specifications" can be laid down, the Minister, under the powers which he already possesses, will not hesitate to include them in the regulations as to the construction and use of motor vehicles.
But the point is that the new clause would not in fact give the authorities greater powers than exist to-day. It is to-day possible for observation to be kept on the production of any motor works as it is put out on the road, and to take legal proceedings for excessive noise if in fact evidence of excessive noise, likely to be accepted by the courts, is forthcoming. That is one of the difficulties. It is difficult to get convictions under these provisions. It may be added that in fact excessive noise is often due to misuse, deliberate or otherwise, of the engine, rather than to the construction of the engine itself. The late Minister emphasised in another place the fact that improvement in this, important matter was more likely to be achieved by cooperation with the industry rather than by threats, and I might draw attention to a passage in a letter sent by the present Minister to the Oxford Anti-Noise Conference a few days ago:
"Not least of your troubles is the silencer which belies its name. We shall not get rid of this nuisance by adding a few more lines to the Statute Book. More exact knowledge of what really causes noise and how it can be quantitatively measured, may make it less difficult to enforce the law against unreasonable offenders. To this end we have invoked the best scientific assistance at the Government's disposal. I have asked for a report at the earliest possible date and I have every hope that the public spirited loaders of the motor manufacturing industry will co-operate with us in a determined effort to find a remedy. "
In those circumstances, and after the assurances I have given, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment, and I hope it will be supported by your Lordships. The whole trend of the motor industry to-day is to silence the car. Tyres are made silent and engines are made silent, and yet there are a small class who demand a noisy car and who are catered for. The noble Earl says: "Oh, we must co-operate with the industry." Surely this Amendment would strengthen the hands of people who are trying to lessen the noise of cars and are not working for the benefit of those who have no consideration for anyone's feelings. I really cannot understand the attitude of the Minister. I should have thought that this clause, or something like, it, would have strengthened the hands of the Minister and the great majority of the trade.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I suspect that the rather hostile tone of the speech made by my noble friend below me does not really represent the full attitude of his Department. I believe they are more friendly than his words indicate, and I am at least glad that this subject is to be examined at Bushey. It may take a good long time to settle the methods of quantitative measurement of noise. Meanwhile it will be a great encouragement if the Ministry conduct prosecutions against people who leave their cars roaring in the street, for twenty minutes at a time, at two o'clock in the morning. It is a very serious thing that late at night these noises should go on quite uninterruptedly, and even if it is difficult to secure convictions it is not a bad thing that the Department should take action, even if they know that they are not going to secure a conviction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot help hoping that the respectful address of my noble friend will have considerable weight with the Government. He does, represent, and other noble Lords have represented, a feeling which is very strong and is growing. I am sure the public will not continue to put up with all this noise. I recognise, of course, that the Government have addressed themselves to this subject on a point which I hope will lead to action, and they have appointed a Committee. I understand from my noble friend Lord Plymouth that if the Committee report

839
favourably they have power as matters stand not only to act against the users of noisy cars but against the makers of them. That is what is essential in the Amendment. The Amendment, I think, is a very well constructed one, and its effect is that it shall be illegal to sell what it is illegal to use. If my noble friend says the Committee will really come to a conclusion rapidly, and that if they report the matter can be done then the Government have power as the law now stands to do what my noble friend who has moved the Amendment asks them to do, that would be a great comfort to many of us.
As matters stand we feel that this is an opportunity which ought not to be allowed to pass, if the expression of opinion of your Lordships' House is likely to have effect on public opinion, both to stimulate those who object to this evil and also to restrain the offender. It is not, I think, quite sufficient to say that it is difficult to enforce clauses of this kind. Parliament also acts as a vehicle for making quite clear what is the view of the public on such matters. It, as it were, formulates public feeling, and your Lordships are now asked to act in that respect. I think it might be of great value to the Government and the Ministry of Transport to have behind them a solemn Amendment passed upon great authority to restrain noise. I have said on "great authority." My noble friend who moved the Amendment did it, I thought, admirably, but he also speaks in the name of an authority even greater than himself, and when a very distinguished physician has told the public and told your Lordships' House that this evil is really antagonistic to the public health, then the time has arrived when something ought to be done. If my noble friend can assure us a little more I for one shall be very happy.
LORD JESSEL: I am very glad that Lord Crawford has raised this question of noise and of leaving exhausts on in the streets. Frequent complaints are made in London about this matter. I know that Lord Crawford suffers from it because he is a neighbour of mine, and when these exhausts are left on they make night hideous. I really do not understand why the Government cannot take action as the law stands now. I do not think you need go to a Depart-
840
mental Committee to know what is noise and what is not noise. We all know pretty well what the noise from exhausts is, and also from the motor cycles which go down the roads at a thousand miles an hour—the most dangerous of all the motor vehicles on the roads. What has been said about sports cars is also quite true. The drivers delight in making a noise. I do not know whether it is to charm their female friends, or what it is, but they make a tremendous noise. This noise is getting an intolerable nuisance, and I am really rather disappointed by the reply of the noble Earl, because he says it is difficult to get a conviction, and yet evidently the Ministry seem rather terrified about a minority of motor manufacturers. I hope that, after the strong expression of opinion on both sides of the House on this matter, the Government may, after all, accept this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: May I ask whether, in fact, it is necessary to make this an offence and therefore have to go through the procedure of getting a conviction? Would it not be quite easy for the Minister simply to put in a clause to say that every motor manufacturer has to have each new model approved by the Minister as being silent? Would not that cover the ground completely and make it very easy for the Minister to do what we all desire?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I need hardly say that I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble Lords who have spoken, and I should like to assure your Lordships that the Minister is gravely concerned, and is determined to pursue the subject as quickly and as energetically as possible. But I would appeal to your Lordships not to press this Amendment at this stage. This matter has been referred to a scientific Committee, and this is to a very considerable extent a scientific matter. The Minister has asked this Committee to report at the earliest possible moment, and as soon as definite recommendations can be obtained from it he will not hesitate to make use of the powers which he already possesses to include these provisions among the regulations with regard to construction and use of motor vehicles. This Committee is composed of scientists of eminence, and I think it would perhaps be wiser to refrain from taking action of this kind

841
until we have had their report. The Minister has exactly the same objects in view as your Lordships have.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I really cannot appreciate the view that this is a scientific matter. It requires no knowledge of science to be aware of this din which deafens one day and night in the streets of London. That there should be research into the matter may be advantageous, but I think that the whole population are aware of this evil, and I think if a lead were given by your Lordships' House to-night by the passage of this Amendment, the general public would feel that the Government are taking this matter properly in hand, because scientific Committees may report in two or three years time, and in the meanwhile we shall find that this evil has got beyond bearing. I think it is injuring the health of the people of this country, and certainly the health of children.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: I quite agree that in many cases it is perfectly easy to tell when an excessive noise is being made, and under the law as it stands at present there are powers of proceeding against people who use these noisy motor cars. I have referred to the difficulties which exist in obtaining convictions, but this is a matter which is, of course, primarily one for the Police. With regard to what the noble Lord opposite says, from one point of view this is not a scientific matter, but from another point of view it is. It is difficult to lay down what is to be considered an excessive noise, and these investigations which are being made are being made primarily with a view to discovering, if possible, a means of estimating quantitatively the noise being made. In reply to what the noble Marquess said, as to whether the Minister would have power under the law as it at present stands to take action against the manufacturers of motor cars, I am advised that he would not be in a position to do that. The Police could not take action directly against them, but they could wait outside the works where these cars are made, and stop the cars at once and impound them, and proceed against them in that way. I do hope that your Lordships will not press this Amendment at this stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LOKD ELTON LOKD ELTON moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) It shall not be lawful to alter any motor vehicle or trailer in such a manner that the use thereof on a road would by reason of such alteration be unlawful under Section 3 (1) of the principal Act.
(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is altered in contravention of this section, any person who so alters it or causes or permits it to be so altered, shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act. The expression 'person' in this subsection shall include a body corporate.
(3) It shall be a good defence to any person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had reasonable cause to believe that the motor vehicle or trailer as altered would not be used on any road in Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following now clause:
Amendments as to licences of drivers and conductors of hackney carriages, and of certain stage carriages, in the Metropolis.
". Section eight of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, as amended, extended, or applied by, or by any order made under, any subsequent enactment (including Section fifty-one of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933), shall have effect, as respects licences granted under the said Section eight after the date appointed for the coming into operation of this section,, with the substitution of three years for one year as the period during which a licence granted under the said section is, if not revoked or suspended, to be in force:
Provided that, with a view to spreading the work of granting such licences, where an application for the grant of such a licence is made within four years from the passing of this Act, the authority by whom the power of granting the licence is exercisable may direct that any licence granted on the application shall, if not revoked or suspended, continue in force during such period, being a period of not less than one nor more than three1 years from the date on which the licence is expressed to take effect, as the authority may at the time of the granting of the licence determine."
The noble Earl said This Amendment requires some little explanation. Hitherto the special (vocational) licence granted to drivers and conductors of public service vehicles of all kinds (omnibuses and

843
coaches, trams, trolley vehicles and taxi-cabs) has had a currency of one year only. In the interests alike of the licensees and of the licensing authority, provision is made in the Bill for the extension of this period of one year to three years in the case of drivers of "public service vehicles" strictly so called, that is to say, omnibuses and coaches. It has been represented that there are equally good grounds for an extension in the case of drivers of tramcars, trolley vehicles and taxicabs, who are licensed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police; and this new clause provides accordingly. The second half of the clause is in the nature of transitional provision and deals only with the period of change-over from the present system to the new system.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
"() For subsection (5) of Section two the following subsection shall be substituted:—
'(5) Any reference in subsection (6) of Section ten of the principal Act to an offence under the said section or to an infringement of the provisions thereof, and any reference in subsection (8) of Section one hundred and nineteen of the principal Act to an offence against that Act or against Section ten thereof, shall be deemed to include a reference to driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment.'"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 16, at end insert ("and any reference to a borough, an urban council or a rural council in a county shall be construed accordingly").—(The, Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
844
"(6) For Section twenty-one the following section shall be substituted:—

'(1) A county council shall have the like powers with regard to the lighting of any road in the landward area of the county not included in a special lighting district as they have with regard to roads so included, and the expenditure incurred by a county council in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be defrayed out of a rate to be levied in equal proportions on owners and occupiers throughout the landward area of the county exclusive of any special lighting district.

(2) In this section the expression "special lighting district" means a special lighting district formed in pursuance of Section forty-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.

(3) Section forty-nine of the Lanarkshire County Council Order, 1925, is hereby repealed.'"

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is necessary for the purpose of adaptation to Scottish legal procedure.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 34, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is a similar Amendment to the last.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 38, at end insert ("(7) Section thirty-one shall not apply").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Short title, citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("and The Road Traffic Amendment Act, 1931").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This next also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("and") and insert ("to ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
"(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to any other enactment shall be construed as a refer-

845
once to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment, including this Act."
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule [Limits of speed]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My first Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 11, leave out ("all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres and the vehicle ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 13, after ("trailer") insert ("and if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 17, leave out from ("and") to ("30") in line lit and insert ("if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 21, leave out from ("vehicle") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("as respects which the first condition as to tyres is satisfied").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2, to leave out all words after "When not drawing a trailer" and insert:

"(a) Motor cars and motor cycles if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied; and motor cars not exceeding one ton in weight unladen and motor cycles if the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

30

(b) Motor ears exceeding one ton in weight unladen if the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

20

846

(c) Heavy motor cars, if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied and the vehicle—

(i) is constructed or adapted for the conveyance of horses and their attendants and used solely for that purpose; or

(ii) does not exceed five tons in weight unladen and is not fitted with a body and is not carrying any load other than that required for the purposes of testing

30

(d) Other heavy motor cars, if the first or the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

20"

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 31, leave out from the the beginning of the line to the end of line 18 on page 33 and insert the said new paragraphs."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I think an Amendment which my noble friend Lord Howe has down to the original Bill becomes an Amendment to this Amendment. Lord Howe's Amendment is designed to increase the speed limit of pneumatic tyred motor cars from twenty miles an hour to thirty miles an hour leaving the speed of solid-tyred vehicles at twenty miles an hour. Under the Bill the latter's speed is an increase from the speed under the Act of 1930 which for solid-tyred vehicles now stands at sixteen miles an hour. The effect of the Amendment is to provide the same speed of thirty miles an hour for heavy motor cars used as goods vehicles as when they are used as omnibuses and horse-boxes. There are many motor vehicles on the road to-day with the same chassis used as omnibuses and horse-boxes and also as goods vehicles, and it would seem to be a rather anomalous position. When equipped, the weight of a standard omnibus or coach chassis will often be just under ten tons or, with six-wheeled double deck omnibuses twelve tons, yet the same chassis carrying a goods vehicle is only allowed to proceed at twenty miles an hour while the omnibuses can proceed at thirty miles an hour. Another point in this respect is that the alteration of speed of heavy cars in comparison with lighter vehicles is producing a dangerous state of affairs in the matter of overloading. The- load haulier is being forced by the restriction of twenty miles an hour and the heavy tax on heavy cars

847
to use a lighter vehicle paying a lower tax and is overloading it to a dangerous degree. I would ask the Government to consider whether the road hauliers are using safe and suitable vehicles for the loads they have to carry and which can be carried at thirty miles an hour. I hope the position will be considered carefully. I beg to move.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: I informed the Committee earlier that the Minister did not look upon the present classification of vehicles for taxation and speed purposes as stereotyped for all time, and I also assured the Committee that the Minister would be ready in future to give the fullest consideration to reasoned proposals of the industry for further modification of the Schedule, or indeed for their recasting on different lines, but, as I said then, he is not prepared at this stage to accept piecemeal Amendments in this Schedule. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment which I have put down on the Paper and which I have just moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 20 (leave out from ("if") to ("or") in line 22 and insert ("the first condition as to tyres is satisfied").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: All the remaining Amendments in my name to the First Schedule are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 27, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("20") in line 29 and insert ("the second condition as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 33, line 30, leave out from ("if") to ("12") in line 33 and insert ("the trailer is not so attached to the drawing vehicle as aforesaid and the second condition as to tyros is satisfied")
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("In any other case") and insert ("If neither the first nor the second condition as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 33, line 40, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("12") in line 42 and insert ("the first or the second conditon as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 34, line 4, leave out from ("if") to ("20") in line 6 and insert ("the first or the second condition as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 34, line 7, after ("a") insert ("single ")
Page 34, line 8, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 13 and insert:

("(i) if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied

20

(ii) if the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

12")

Page 34, line 14, at end insert:
("For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) satisfaction of the first condition as to tyres means that all the wheels of the vehicle in question and. where the vehicle is drawing a trailer or trailers, of the trailer or trailers, are fitted with pneumatic tyres;

(b) satisfaction of the second condition as to tyres means that the first condition as to tyres is not satisfied but that each of the wheels aforesaid is fitted with one or other of the following types of tyre, namely pneumatic, soft or elastic.")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Consequential and, minor amendments]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert in the references to the principal Act:
"Section twenty-seven.
In subsection (4), the references to the erection and maintenance of weighbridges or other machines shall be deemed to include references to the provision and operation of weighbridges or other machines.
In subsection (5), the references to the erection of weighbridges or other machines shall be deemed to include references to the provision of weighbridges or other machines."
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 10, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
"Section forty-eight.
In subsection (2), after the word 'erection' there shall be inserted the words 'or retention.'

849
In subsection (3), after the words 'no traffic signs' there shall be inserted the words '(other than traffic signs placed by a council or local authority in pursuance of an obligation imposed by or under this Act or the Road Traffic Act, 1934).'
Section forty-nine.
After the words 'to be followed by traffic' there shall be inserted the words 'and being of the prescribed size, colour, and type, or of another character authorised by the Minister under the last preceding section'; and the words 'in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section' shall be omitted."
The noble Earl said: This is not entirely a drafting Amendment. It is intended to meet a particular case which has given rise to some difficulties, that of the traffic sign for which the Minister's authorisation was given only after the erection of the sign. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to add to the reference to Section 57 of the principal Act:
"In subsection (3), after the word 'erection' there shall be inserted the words 'provision, maintenance, or operation.'"
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment to this Schedule in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 10, at end insert—
("Section one hundred and nineteen.
In subsection (3), after the word ' erection ' in both places where it occurs there shall be inserted the words ' or provision'.").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved to add to the Schedule:
"London Passenger Transport Act, 1933. At end of paragraph 1, Twelfth Schedule, add:
One by the Minister after consultation with such persons as he may think fit to represent the interests of pedestrians;
850
One by the Minister after consultation with such persons as he may think fit to represent the interests of cyclists."
The noble Lord said: This is a very brief and modest Amendment, and I think if the Minister objects to it he will object to it only on the ground that it travels perhaps a little wide of the Bill by seeking to amend the London Passenger Transport Act of 1933, although I am advised, for what it is worth, that it does not travel too wide. The point is this. There is a London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and this Amendment seeks to add to the approximately forty representatives on that body one representative of pedestrians and one representative of cyclists. Of the forty existing representatives more than half represent local authorities. There are also on the Committee representatives of the London Passenger Transport Board, of the railway companies, of mechanically-propelled road vehicles, of horse-drawn vehicles, and of taxicabs as well as of labour employed in the industry. I think, therefore, there is some ground for claiming that those whose stake in the roads is their own lives should also have representation. There is one useful analogy, the Road and Rail Traffic Act, under which there is a Transport Advisory Council on which pedestrians and cyclists are represented. That Transport Advisory Council has within its purview matters which affect pedestrians and cyclists far less than do the matters which come under the purview of the London and Homo Counties Traffic Advisory Committee under the Act of 1933. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, after line 11 insert the said words.—(Lord Elton.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is difficult to say that anything in your Lordships' House is out of order, but I should think this Amendment gets as near that as possible. It certainly was ruled out of order in another place. To begin with the London Traffic Advisory Committee, to which this Amendment refers, has really no functions at all in relation to this Bill. It is, as a matter of fact, mentioned in Clause 1, but that is almost incidentally. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. This was only considered a comparatively short time ago—perhaps twelve months ago. It was very care-

851
fully debated, and Parliament, after full consideration, eventually decided upon the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee as it appears in the Schedule of that Act. I can hardly feel that we should be justified, after so short an interval, in amending that Act.
The point is this. There are 23 representatives of the local authorities and three representatives of the Police on the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and they are all concerned with the interests of pedestrians and cyclists as well as with those of all other users of the roads. It is perfectly true that separate representation is given to road users such as taxicabs, horse-drawn vehicles and mechanically-propelled vehicles, but if separate representation was given to pedestrians and cyclists as well, all the various motoring organisations would, without the slightest doubt, press for their own claims to representation to be considered. This Committee is already a Committee of considerable size—there are some forty members of it—and I venture to say that there is hardly a ease for altering its constitution after so short an interval has elapsed.
LORD ELTON: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LENGTH OF SPEECHES.
LORD KILMATNE LORD KILMATNE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That it is desirable that a time limit be imposed on all speeches delivered during debates in the House of Lords except those of the occupants for the time being of the two Front Benches. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to ask the leave of the House to make a slight alteration in the wording of my Motion as printed. I want to leave out the word "two" so that it will read "the Front Benches" instead of "the two Front Benches." I hope that I may find support from many noble Lords who, like myself, feel that the length of speeches delivered in this House might be curtailed with advantage. I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House since I was elected in 1911 and I have sat through some long and important
852
debates. I take the debates on the Parliament Bill, the Irish debates, and the debates on the disestablishment of the Welsh Church and Prayer Book revision as examples. In such long debates lasting two or three or four days, a great number of Peers desire to speak, but after two speeches have been delivered by the Government spokesmen and two by the Opposition there remains very little of importance that has not been said. Most of the other speeches are simply a rehash, as a rule, of what has been said before, but put perhaps in rather different language.
The result is that noble Lords leave the Chamber and go and sit in the Library until the end is in sight. I am perfectly sure that the main reason why the average number of Peers attending our debates is so small is on account of the long speeches. On a fine summer evening or afternoon any one accustomed to an open air, active life finds it a considerable strain to come and sit here for several hours listening to speech after speech, for one has to be specially trained, I think, really to enjoy this sort of thing after the novelty has worn off. I think a good many noble Lords, after sitting through one or two of our major debates, make up their minds then and there not to attend the House again unless they have a very urgent Whip. I have listened in the past with pleasure and enjoyment to speeches in this House of more than an hour's duration by great speakers like the late Lord Rosebery, the late Lord Morley, Lord Curzon and others. I have also had to listen to others of half that length which were a weariness of the spirit. Quite recently I listened to a speech in this House during which the speaker repeated himself at least five times.
In bringing forward this Motion I have in mind another debating assembly to which I had the honour to belong for many years. I refer to the General Synod of the Church of Ireland in Dublin, which sits for four days every May. In that assembly there is a President and an Assessor who govern the procedure. There, as in every other debating assembly, when an important subject comes up a great many members have something to say; after a time the large audience gets impatient and there are cries of "Vote, vote." Then when a

853
speaker rises in his place the President asks him if he desires to speak. If he says "Yes," the President says "You may speak, Mr. So-and-so, but as time presses I can only allow you ten minutes"; and so on with any subsequent speaker. Now we have no President in this Chamber, but the Lord Chancellor or whoever occupies the Woolsack in his absence is in fact in much the same position as the Speaker in the House of Commons.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD KILMAINE: Well, I only mean to suggest that the Lord Chancellor, when he is on the Woolsack, is in relatively the same position. Perhaps I am wrong. It occurred to me that possibly the House might consider entrusting the Lord Chan cellor with the regulation of our debates—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD KILMAINE: —and give him authority to impose a time limit on all speeches except from the Front Benches. I exclude the Front Benches because it is inevitable that introductory speeches and winding up speeches must be fairly lengthy. As for the rest, it has been my experience that a speaker should be able to say all that he has to say that matters, without undue padding or vain repetitions, in fifteen or twenty minutes, or sometimes less. I would like to see the Lord Chancellor empowered to request members to limit their remarks to ten or fifteen minutes when he considers the subject of the debate has been sufficiently ventilated. There are various forms of speeches—lectures, addresses, sermons and speeches at any public debate or assembly. Some have to be long, but in most cases the shorter they are the more they are appreciated. I have listened to sermons, for instance, the only effect of which was to make me wish to go out and break all Ten Commandments one after the other. I see by the comments in the daily Press that the House of Commons is supposed to need curtailment of speeches far more than this House does and than various, efforts to bring that about have been tried but have failed. But, my Lords, they are not quite as polite in another place as we are here, and I fancy that when a speaker goes on longer than is welcome the Members can call "Divide, divide." It
854
has to be a pretty hardy speaker who can go on for long in face of obvious opposition.
The real point is that a love of debate is a gift or the result of careful training. May I instance the noble Viscount who leads the House? He always appears to me thoroughly to enjoy the proceedings. It is not so with many of us. We come to this House, not because we enjoy coming, but because we think we may be doing the country or the Government a bit of good by coming. This Chamber is not a restful or soothing place to begin with. The atmosphere to many of us is overheated; there is a glare of light in the eyes; the colour of the benches is one which is never found in any hospital or nursing home; and we come here in clothes which we would far rather not be wearing. Then, when we listen to speaker after speaker, mostly on the lengthy side, till the subject of debate becomes absolutely threadbare, the deadly feeling of extreme boredom comes over us and our one desire is to escape—and we do escape to the Library or the tearoom.
Possibly it is not fully realised by many people what a very important part boredom can play in people's lives. It is a matter of temperament. To highly strung or nervous people the feeling sometimes becomes so acute that they simply must escape somehow from the surrounding cause. Many girls leave their homes for this reason; for better or worse, wives leave their husbands; and husbands leave their wives and families sometimes for the same reason—sheer, desperate boredom. Nobody can look at any photograph or picture of the Prince of Wales without feeling that His Royal Highness must have suffered intensely from many of the things he has had to do. But the members of the Royal House are trained from infancy for public duty and service, and the way in which they carry out those onerous duties wins the love of most and earns the respect of all. Many members of this House have not been so trained. Some, perhaps, like myself, were brought up to think that to excel in field sports and games was the main duty of a gentleman. In these days of rush, slowness in any form is irritating—a slow train, a batsman taking an hour to make sixteen runs, and so on. But far the most irritating thing of all is too prolonged an oration. It is in the hope that if this

855
Motion is adopted it may lead to a better average attendance in this House and to the shortening of debates that I have ventured to bring the Motion before the House. I leave it to the judgment of the House.
Moved to Resolve, That it is desirable that a time limit be imposed on all speeches delivered during debates in the House of Lords except those of the occupants for the time being of the Front Benches.—(Lord Kilmaine.)
THE CHAIKMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): Before my noble friend replies I should like to say one word. The Motion apparently excludes those matters which are dealt with by the noble Lords on the two Front Benches; that is to say, Government Bills and Government business; but I wish to oppose the Motion very strongly on behalf of those of your Lordships who wish to discuss Private Bills. Your Lordships will remember that a short time ago there was a Bill introduced in this House with regard to the Sussex Downs. That Bill was the subject of a debate of some length in your Lordships' House, a debate in which a large number of speakers took part. If a Motion of this kind were adopted by your Lordships' House, the desire of many noble Lords to put their views before the House would be frustrated. In the interests therefore of the promoters and opponents of Private Bills, I very much deprecate this Motion being agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord who has put this Motion on the Order Paper I think failed to realise the true reason for the length of time taken in. the delivery of speeches in this House. It is the practice of reading speeches, contrary to the accepted rules of this House, which makes the debates as long as they are to-day. It is perfectly true that the responsible Ministers on the Front Bench are under a practical obligation to read much of their speeches, for the reason that they have to quote figures accurately and they are certain to be held liable at some later stage of their careers for every word which they utter, in the responsible positions which they hold. But that does not apply to noble Lords on the Back Benches, and if the noble Lord will take a little advice and will refrain in future from reading his speeches, and other noble Lords will
856
do the same, the debates in this House will proceed very much more rapidly than they do. Having made that remark I have nothing further to say; but the practice is not one to be encouraged, and I regret that the noble Lord should have moved the Motion which he has moved and have taken so long to do it from his brief.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Motion and asked for your Lordships' acceptance of it has delivered a speech in which he has narrated to us many of the drawbacks and sadnesses which are inherent to life. He has developed them all from his antipathy (if I may use the expression) to long speeches in your Lordships' House. He thinks that some step should be taken, and I think he would attribute the authority to the Lord Chancellor, to curtail the speeches which members of your Lordships' House are allowed to deliver. When I saw the Motion on the Paper I was glad to read the last portion of it, because I should have thought the noble Lord's indictment might have been properly directed towards myself. In recent years I have ventured to trespass on your Lordships' indulgence at great length on many occasions, and your Lordships have always treated me with that great consideration and indulgence which I hope that the speeches I have delivered on behalf of the Government have deserved.
The noble Lord exempts the occupants of the Front Benches from his censure— because I look on this more as a Motion of censure than as anything else—and he allows them to continue their headlong career of long speeches while the other members of your Lordships' House are to be restricted. I am sorry to think of the empty Benches which I see around me at the present moment and also on many occasions when there are important debates in this House. The noble Lord desires to curtail the speeches which fall from noble Lords who occupy the Back Benches. I believe that this is quite a novel Motion in your Lordships' House; in fact I have not been able to find that a debate on this subject has ever taken place in this House. The noble Lord has discovered a wrong which he is hoping to right by obtaining your Lordships' acceptance of the Motion which is on the

857
Paper. This is a subject which has been raised elsewhere on more than one occasion, but I am inclined to think that chore is a great distinction between your Lordships' House and not only another place in this country but legislative assemblies in different parts of the world.
The procedure in another place is that debates are curtailed, not by the laying down of some definite length of speech, but by methods which we all deplore, such as the closure and the guillotine. On balance it has been decided that it is necessary that those methods should be adopted for the purpose of bringing to an end debates which might go on for an undue length of time. My noble friend who sits on the Cross Benches (Viscount Ullswater), when ho exercised authority in another place, was very instrumental in curtailing debates taken part in by those who were not altogether actuated by a desire for the progress of business. His authority on those occasions was exercised with such consideration and such skill that I am sure that the youthful obstructors (if there were such people at any time in another place) found their activities curtailed by his friendly authority. But whilst there might be such instincts in the minds of members who sit in another place, that has never been a feature of your Lordships' House.
During the time while I have had the honour of occupying a seat in your Lordships' House I have never seen anything approaching what goes by the familiar name of obstruction. I think your Lordships will agree that our debates are very much on the short side rather than on the long side; and I venture to say, as one who is not at all a young member of this House, that I regret that there are not more and longer speeches delivered in your Lordships' House. After all, the whole object of the existence of legislative assemblies is not really exactly what their names would imply. We look on them as assemblies for the purpose of the ventilation of the views and the expression of the opinions and the grievances of the nation. While it is unfortunate that debates in another place must for other reasons be curtailed, still I do feel that when we have opportunities of free discussion in this House, and when the experience of every one of us is in the direction of inspiring the feeling that there are members of your
858
Lordships' House who can make contributions of a very valuable character to debates, it would be a great misfortune if we laid down that by some authority accorded to the Lord Chancellor there should be a curtailment of those speeches, which I think most of your Lordships are only too anxious to hear.
The noble Lord has made the assertion that the reason of the small attendances in your Lordships' House on most occasions is that Peers are not willing or anxious to come and listen to speeches which he thinks are unduly long. I am inclined to think, and I believe your Lordships will agree with me, that that is not the reason for the small attendances in your Lordships' House. That is a subject on which there is perhaps a great deal to be said, and I am sure that there are many grounds which could be put forward for the opinion that the reason the attendance is not as large as one would like it to be is the great change which occurred in this House some twenty years ago. That may be said to be, and it is my opinion that it is, probably the main reason why the attendances of noble Lords in this House are not very large. But I think that we must also remember that a great many of your Lordships occupy their time in carrying on day in and day out work in those parts of the country where they live, which perhaps is not of so obvious a character as the work in this House, but which is a great contribution to the service of this country. There are also financial considerations. Many of your Lordships' predecessors were in a position to come up to London, and spend their time in attending the House and carrying out their duties as legislators. Their successors have probably found themselves unable to do that, and prefer, and have of necessity, to reside in those districts in which they have lived for probably generations past.
When one considers all these reasons one will find that the reason put forward by the noble Lord for the small attendance in this House is one which would not have occurred to any of your Lordships. I can think of no occasion on which a speech from the Back Benches could really come under the condemnation of any one of your Lordships, and speaking as one of those who sit on the Front Bench, and who is desirous of obtaining from

859
your Lordships all the assistance we can get, I wish it were possible to encourage more of your Lordships to attend this House, and more of your Lordships who are in the early days of your existence to take part in our debates. I wish something could be done, not to deter such members from speaking, or to induce them to curtail their speeches, but to encourage them to make speeches 'and to put forward their views. I think that the views which are put forward before your Lordships are of an instructive and very valuable character, and I wish that more could be done to encourage the placing of those views before our Legislative Assembly.
I think one can say that the debates which take place in this House have a distinct value. I think the fact that our debates are reported in the newspapers means a great deal to the people of this country. They look to this House for its opinion on all the great subjects of the day, and I think one can say that in the debates which we listen to in this House they are not disappointed. There is no subject on which some of your Lordships are not able to make a valuable contribution, either from your own personal experiences or from your knowledge, and I feel that I am carrying your Lordships with me when I say that I sincerely hope that no Motion will ever appear in the annals of this House which suggests that we should curtail the speeches which your Lordships desire to deliver to your fellow members. I have nothing to add but I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not accept the Motion.
LORD KILMAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
That the Committee have met and considered the Standing Orders of the House, with a view to any amendment or revision of the same which may result in a saving of expense, having particular reference to the daily reprinting and re-circulation of Motions or Notices which are left for considerable periods on the Order Paper.
The Committee have heard evidence of the Clerk of the Parliaments on this sub-
860
ject, and recommend that Standing Order No. XXI be amended as follows—
Standing Order No. XXI, line 17, after ("renewed") insert:
("When any Notice shall have remained on the Minutes of Proceedings for one month, exclusive of any period during which the House may stand adjourned for more than five days, without any Lord giving notice of appointing the same for a date, such Notice shall not any longer appear among the Notices and Orders of the Day, and shall not again be included among the Notices and Orders of the day until any Lord shall give notice of appointing the same for a date.")
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships in moving that this Report be considered and agreed to. It will be within the recollection of this House that a few days ago Lord Ponsonby raised a question as to whether it might be possible to effect a saving of expense, by adopting some other procedure with regard to the method by which Notices appear on the Order Paper, and on the Motion of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Hail sham, a Committee was appointed to go into the matter. That Committee has considered it, and this is its Report. The effect of the Report is that an Amendment of the Standing Order is recommended, and I may perhaps briefly explain how that Amendment would operate.
Your Lordships are aware that when any member of this House desires to put down a Motion or Question, and he has not determined the day on which he will bring it forward, he puts it down for "No day named." Under the present Standing Orders such a Motion or Question may remain on the Order Paper indefinitely, and for a very long time indeed, until the noble Lord can find a day on which to discuss it. It is thought that it is desirable that your Lordships should have opportunities of studying the Order Paper and seeing the nature of the business which is coming forward, even although a date has not actually been named for the discussion. But there is perhaps a limit to all things, and it occurred to the Committee that it would be sufficient if such Notices and Motions remained on the Order Paper for a month, in order to enable every member of this House fully to acquaint himself with what appears on the Order Paper, but for no longer than that, in view of

861
the expense which would be entailed by leaving Notices on the Paper.
Therefore it is proposed that no Notice shall remain on the Paper for "No day named" for more than a month. When the month has expired it will automatically come off the Paper. I think there will be a notice on the last day on which it appears to say that it will be automatically removed, because there are occasions when you wish to take a Notice off the Paper altogether, and it would lead co some confusion if there were no distinction made between the two forms. Then, when the noble Lord has fixed a date, his Motion will reappear on the Paper, not for "No day named" but with a date fixed. That is the suggestion of the Committee, and if your Lordships accept the Report doubtless in due course an Amendment of the Standing Orders will be made. I beg to move that the Report be now considered and agreed to.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PONSONBST OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, as I was responsible for calling attention to this small matter I should like to express my agreement with the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, in his explanation of the Report come to by the Select Committee, and at the same time to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having so readily facilitated a method by which we can correct what I think was really a very undesirable practice—namely, using the Order Paper for publicity purposes.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I doubt whether the Report of the Committee goes far enough. I cannot see what is the object, day after day, of issuing these Parliamentary Papers with at the end a number of Resolutions put down for "No day named." Surely once a week would be quite sufficient for the issue of a Paper of that kind. What we want when we look at the daily Parliamentary Papers is to see what is coming on to-day and to-morrow. We do not care what is coming on next week, or the week after. If we get that once a week it is quite sufficient. I am certain that great saving might be made of printing and paper if attention were given to this. There is also another matter which I am sorry the
862
Committee did not deal with. It is a great waste of printing and paper when a single Amendment is circulated on a big sheet of paper. During the last two or three days we have had full sheets of paper circulated with a small Amendment in the middle of each. Can there be a greater waste than that?
EARL PEEL: My Lords, may I ask one question of the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, because I am not sure that I quite understood the effect of the Report. I understand the object is that a noble Lord who desires publicity shall not obtain that publicity so easily by placing a Motion on the Paper for "No day named," and that after a month it will disappear automatically from the Paper. Is there anything to prevent a noble Lord who is animated by such a passion for publicity as is described putting a Motion down for a particular day, and then when that day approaches moving it on to another day? If ho did that he would obtain publicity, and also, it seems to me, defeat the rule. Perhaps the noble Earl can answer me on that.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: When the noble Earl speaks of a month in his Report does he mean a calendar month, or does he mean four weeks on which the House has sat, because obviously in the case of Christmas and the Easter holiday it will make a very great difference?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I can answer the noble Lord by reading the proposed Standing Order:
"When any Notice shall have remained on the Minutes of Proceedings for one month, exclusive of any period during which the House may stand adjourned for more than five days …."
So that if Whitsuntide or Easter comes in, that will not count. Then the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has certainly put a poser to me. Perhaps the ingenuity of noble Lords in evading Standing Orders is very considerable, but I think that, with the expression of opinion which was given by my noble friend opposite and by the Leader of the House, the un-desirability of the practice of putting down such Questions and Motions on the Paper will be apparent, and the fact that your Lordships do not approve of it will curtail the desire of noble Lords to evade the Stand-

863
ing Order. I think it is the practice of your Lordships' House when your Lordship's are aware of the general wishes of the House to endeavour to carry out its decision, and I think this Standing Order amply notifies the wish of your Lordships. But of course I quite agree with Lord Peel that it might be got round in that way. In fact, other ways have occurred to me which I was careful not to mention—
EARL PEEL: I thought of several others.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: —but I think that perhaps until some noble Lord takes advantage of those other methods we might endeavour to get on with the Standing Order as it stands. We did, as a matter of fact, discuss this in Committee, and we thought that probably this Standing Order would meet the wishes of the House. Then I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, made two suggestions. One was that the amount of printing and paper used for the Amendments in Committee might be curtailed. I have been into that, and I think that probably we shall be able to curtail it to some extent. There are certain difficulties, with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at present, but we will do our best to curtail the amount of paper and printing. As a matter of fact, I think the question of Amendments in Committee would not come under the Standing Orders, it would come more under the administrative authority of the learned Clerk of the Parliaments.
The other suggestion made by the noble Viscount was that we might have the Notices printed once a week only. I must say I do see some difficulty in that, because noble Lords, when they receive their Papers, like to look at the business, and if it varied, we will say on Tuesdays and Thursdays, from that which appeared on Wednesdays, possibly some confusion might be caused. But I do not think this matter was considered by the Committee. Still, it might be gone into privately, and, if there is any possibility of curtailing expense by adopting the suggestion of the noble Viscount, I feel quite sure that your Lordships will be willing to accept it.
THE EARL OF STAIR: My Lords, with regard to the remarks of the noble. Viscount, Lord Ullswater, I may say that-one of the reasons for non-attendance of
864
Peers in this House is that a great many of us who live a long way off and have a great many other occupations very frequently do not get our Notices of what is coming on until after it has taken place. If some of the Notices could reach us earlier rather than later it would make a great deal of difference.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think it would be rather difficult to do that, because, supposing that my noble friend wishes to put down a Motion on a Tuesday, to come on on a Wednesday, it could not possibly reach noble Lords in Scotland in time. Very often a Motion is not put down until the day before. Of course, as much as is possible appears on the Paper, but you could not be sure that the Orders of the Day would be fixed three or four days beforehand.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I ask one further question? When this Standing Order becomes operative, are we to assume that it will be retrospective and that certain Questions which your Lordships have for some considerable time seen on the Order Paper would then automatically disappear?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that if your Lordships adopted the Standing Order it would be immediately operative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY asked His Majesty's Government whether they will undertake, the printing and publication of the history of the institution and personnel of Parliament which is being prepared under the direction of a Committee consisting of members of both Houses. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, there is a remarkable gap in the historical records which have to do with Parliament. Much has been written upon the nature of our Constitution, much has been written on the great events which mark its development, but the records of the actual living individuals whose life and work, whose function, whose offices, have gradually built up the Constitution—those records have never been put together. They exist in scattered form all over this country—much, of course, in the hands of the State, but much in private hands; and they have never been collected, they have never been put upon record.
These persons, of both Houses of Parliament, stretching back perhaps to the reign of Henry III or further, are the people who have actually made the Constitution as we know it. It has grown under their hands, by their action, by their views; and yet no record has been made of it. They had no design; the Constitution has arrived without design; that is its great merit. They never looked forward, of course, but we may profitably look back and trace the steps by which these wonderful institutions have been evolved. And therefore a very distinguished Committee has been formed under the patronage of the Prime Minister and of all the ex-Prime Ministers who are alive, of Mr. Speaker, the Lord Chancellor, and many other persons of great prominence and distinction in both Houses of Parliament, and this Committee is intent on gathering together these records. It will be a work of very great importance, and all that we ask is that we should have the co-operation of the Government. We do not want more than that. My Question is merely to ask them for that co-operation in the form in which I have put it. I feel quite certain I shall receive a favourable reply.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, for the second time to-day I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Marquess—I am getting rather nervous. But I should very much like to support the Question which he has addressed to the Government. I was on the original Committee that brought this matter before the Government of the day, and it was a matter of surprise to me that there should be no complete record of that personnel of the Mother of Parliaments. Some of the great names in our history—I found their constituencies were entirely unknown. Some of the great Divisions that have taken place in Parliament and the numbers of the people who voted in them were not known. That is gradually being corrected. A mass of information is being brought together, and I think it only right, in addition to those whom the noble Marquess has mentioned, to mention very specially the name of my right honourable friend Colonel Wedgwood—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE—who has been quite indefatigable in pursuing this matter, in stirring up
866
interest in it, and in collecting a body of willing helpers, many of whom are doing research work for nothing. I only hope the Government will give a sympathetic response to the Question which the noble Marquess has addressed.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I feel that from these rather empty Benches some humble support ought also to be accorded to what the noble Marquess has said. History is so tremendously important in the education of every one of us—and I am afraid it is rather neglected—that anything that can encourage its study is worthy of the greatest consideration. I would only add that I hope your Lordships' House will receive as much attention in this history when it is published as will another place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think no one can entertain any doubt as to the importance and permanent value of the work which is being done by the Committee to which my noble friend Lord Salisbury referred. The names of those who form the Committee are perhaps the best guarantee of their adequacy for the labours that they have undertaken and the satisfactory and complete results we may expect from their work. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord special reference to my right honourable friend Colonel Wedgwood, to whose initiative so much of this work has been due. On behalf of the Government the discussion with the Committee has been undertaken mainly by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Your Lordships will appreciate that Treasury considerations are necessarily involved in the sort of question which is being submitted by the noble Marquess, and the answer which I have to give is an answer with I have received from him and which I deliver with his authority.
My right honourable friend tells me that he has been assured by the Committee that the proposed history will not involve a net charge on public funds, and with the object of assisting the undertaking my right honourable friend has agreed, on behalf of the Government, to an arrangement which is accepted by the Committee as satisfactory and likely to produce the results hoped for. This is the arrangement which has been reached: Provided that there is secured beforehand from sources other than public funds

867
a minimum sum of £15,000 towards the cost of compiling the history, the Government, while they cannot pledge Parliament or future Administrations to a continuing expenditure of public money, will be prepared for their part to authorise the publication and placing on sale by the Stationery Office, at the public cost, of volumes of the history up to a maximum number, varying, proportionately with the amount collected, from twenty, if only the minimum sum is secured, up to the total of forty if £.30,000 is secured. It is anticipated by the Committee that receipts from sales, which will be credited to the Stationery Office Vote, will cover the cost of publication. It is understood that the Government cannot take any responsibility for raising the above sums, but my right honourable friend is sure—and I know his feeling is shared in this House—that there will be a general hope that the Committee may be successful in their efforts.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I desire, as a member of the Committee which has been referred to, to say one word of thanks to the noble Viscount for the statement he has made and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the promise he has given. I might point this out: The State is prepared to pay for the printing and publication of historical manuscripts. It has issued a great number of volumes of historical manuscripts. Surely the history of Parliament itself is quite as important as the manuscripts, which are the documents relating to what was done in the Parliaments, documents written some by official, others by non-official, persons; but surely the history of who the persons were who came here, how they came here, what they did when they got here, and what their decisions were is just as important as, if not more important than, the historical documents which the State has already published. In these days particularly, when it is the fashion to derogate from the position of Parliament and to suggest dictatorships and various other things, surely a history which records how our Parliament grew from small beginnings to the great position which it now occupies is not one which ought to be neglected or despised. It is one which should be of vast interest not only to the people of this country, but to the people of the Dominions and the people of the United States as well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us about the business for next week and at the same time to ask him, with apologies, whether he has been able to provide time for the Motion I desire to put down for Monday next. The reason for such short notice is that I understand the Notice Paper is filled up for the whole course of next week, and as this is a matter of very great gravity, consequent on the declaration made by the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, to-day, I have felt obliged, with the approval of my noble friends who act with me, to put down this Motion at this short notice.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I appreciate the urgency which necessitated the Motion going down at short notice, and I only hope that everybody will this time at any rate have time to read the Notice that the Motion is coming on before it is actually discussed. I think the best plan would be that we should meet on Monday at three o'clock instead of at 4.15. There has to be taken a certain amount of Government business. There is the Committee stage of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, the Second Reading of the Colonial Stock Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and the Public Works Loans Bill. These four are almost formal. Then there is the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Shops Bill. After that, which ought not to take long, we shall have the rest of the sitting available for the discussion of the Vote of Censure of which Notice has just been given.
On Tuesday, we have the Sheriffdom of Perth and Angus Order, 1034, and the County Courts Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill and which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack desires to take through all its stages in order that it may get to another place. Then there is the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill and the Milk Bill, the Committee stage of the National Maritime Museum Bill and the Dindings Agreement (Approval) Bill, and the Third Reading of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill. I think the only substantial thing there would be the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill.
On Wednesday there is the Third Reading of the National Maritime Museum

869
Bill; and there will be perhaps the Third Reading of the Road Traffic Bill. I should like to get it on Wednesday, but it there are many alterations on Report then, probably, we shall have to take it on Thursday. I thought we would wait and see how much the Bill was modified on Report stage. Then there are a number of Questions in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and of my noble friends Lord Danesfort, Lord Lamington, and the Duke of Montrose, and there are certain Church Measures which will, I think, fill up the rest of Wednesday. On Thursday we shall have further stages of the Bills I have already referred to and there will be the Second Reading of the Cattle Industry Bill which is coining from another place at the beginning of next week and which it will be necessary to pass through all its stages before the House adjourns.
If I may go on to the following week I think I can give all the business. On Monday, July 30, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Cattle Industry Bill, the Third Reading of the Colonial Stock Bill and of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, and the consideration of any Amendments from another place with regard to the various Bills which will have gone down there. On Tuesday, July 31, we propose to take all stages of the Appropriation Bill which, in this House, is little more than a formality, the Third Reading of the Cattle Industry Bill, and then, after a Royal Commission to give His Majesty's Assent to such measures as we have passed, I hope the House will be able to adjourn to some date which I hope then to be able to announce.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving us the full programme for the next ten days, but there is one detail I should like to ask him. On Thursday next, owing to a certain function taking place, I do not
870
know if the House will meet at a different time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If it would be for the general convenience there would be no judicial difficulty about meeting at three o'clock on that day. I do not think any of the business for Thursday, except the Cattle Industry Bill, will be of a contentious character. That may take a little tune, and it might well be convenient to meet at three o'clock. I will communicate through the usual channels and ascertain what are the general wishes of the House with regard to the time of meeting.

LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.