Sitting of 4 July 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

  STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH:
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table, Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof; the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

  Loughborough Corporation Bill [Lords].

  Bill to be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Building Trade Workers, Stranraer
    Mr. Sloanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to ask for the release of the building trade workers at Stranraer now engaged in the defence service.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): As I indicated in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question on 14th June, the building workers referred to are available for temporary release for essential local building work. Immediately the Ministry of Labour intimate that they are unable from their other resources to
    980
    meet essential building trade requirements in the Stranraer area, arrangements will be made for the granting of the necessary temporary releases in accordance with the provisions of the scheme agreed with the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Sloan: Am I to understand from the answer that these 28 building trade workers are to be incarcerated in Stranraer unless they are required for local building operations? Cannot they be used elsewhere?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot, for security reasons, discuss why the National Fire Service remains at that strength, but I agree with the hon. Member that it is highly desirable that building trade workers who are in the Fire Service should be granted temporary release in any area where their services can be used for house building.
    Mr. Sloan: Surely it is unnecessary today to have skilled building trade operatives as members of the Fire Service? Could not the right hon. Gentleman now see that their places are filled with men of less skill?
    Mr. Johnston: Again for security reasons, I cannot give an affirmative answer.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Would the Secretary of State consider the advisability of releasing men of this description all over Scotland and bringing them back into the building industry?
    Mr. Johnston: The purpose of the scheme which I negotiated with the Ministry of Labour was that they would be temporarily released in any case where the local building pool of labour was insufficient.

    Prefabricated Houses (Subsidies)
    Mr. Sloanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be in a position to state what subsidies will be paid to local authorities in respect of the Portal house; and what is likely to be the rent.
    Mr. Johnston: I hope to be in a position to make a statement about the arrangements for the erection, management and finance of the emergency factory-made house in Scotland, in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Scottish Housing Bill which will be pre-

    981
    sented to the House this week, or upon some other occasion in the immediate future.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Are we to understand that Scotland is to get 100,000 Portal houses? What proportion of these will be manufactured in Scotland?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot say how many we will get, but I have asked for 100,000. As to the proportion of the component parts which will be manufactured in Scotland, that is still a matter for discussion.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Export Credit Facilities
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement on the consultation he has been having on credit facilities, upon which much of our post-war trade will depend.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I hope, following consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be able to introduce legislation next Session to extend export credits facilities.

    Russia
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a full statement on the consultations that have taken place on post-war trade with the U.S.S.R.; who have taken part in the talks; and have any private firms been involved in any form.
    Mr. Dalton: These discussions, as I stated in reply to my hon. Friend on 16th May last, are being carried on between His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow and the Soviet Government and are proceeding. The discussions are between Governments and no private firms are, therefore, involved in them. But, as I informed my hon. Friend, a number of manufacturers in this country are, I am glad to say, in touch with Soviet representatives about post-war business.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that this country has strained itself in its war contribution more than any other country, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that all possible steps are being taken to bring about the maximum trade between this country and the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir; we are very anxious to do all we can on both sides. As I said in the reply which I have already quoted, there have been consultations in Moscow between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government, and a desire has been expressed on both sides to expand Anglo-Soviet trade on a firm basis after the war.
    Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that constant references are being: made in an American trade journal to the arrangements that have already been arrived at; and will he bear in mind that it is those references that are causing concern in this country?
    Mr. Dalton: People should remember that things that appear in the Press, even in American trade journals, are not always correct.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Overseas Trade Department implicated in these negotiations?
    Mr. Dalton: All Members of the Government are implicated more or less, and my right hon. Friend and myself more than the others.

    Patent Laws (Committee)
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the committee which is to consider the reform of the Patent Laws is empowered to investigate the records of patentees with a view to ascertaining whether the existing law has been used in a manner contrary to the public interest.
    Mr. Dalton: An inquiry into this matter would certainly fall within the terms of reference of the committee.

    Neutral Countries
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade what cases have in recent time been brought to his notice of hindrances being put in the way of British trade in neutral countries; and whether commercial attaches have been instructed to report all such cases immediately.
    Mr. Dalton: None, Sir, Generally speaking, neutral countries are anxious to import from us far more than we can spare, having regard to our own needs and those of Empire and Allied Countries, which are dependent upon us for supplies.

    Restrictive Practices
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government's policy, as expressed in the White Paper on Employment Policy, on the matter of restrictive practices in industry applies also to trade and commerce.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government's policy on restrictive practices in industry is concerned only with the effect of such practices on employment or also with the effect on prices.
    Mr. Dalton: With both, Sir.

    Supplementary Coupon Allowances
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the representation made by the West Ham Education Committee, a copy of rich has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Plaistow; and what steps he is taking in the matter.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, and I have given it careful consideration, but I regret that, at this critical stage of the war, I cannot see my way to extend the supplementary coupon allowance in the way suggested by the committee.

    Stockings (Hospital Staffs)
    Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsleyasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that nurses are given coupon concessions for the purchase of stockings, he will give similar concessions to physiotherapists who are required to wear stockings by the rules of the hospitals in which they work.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I regret that, in view of the shortage of supplies, I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Will my right hon. Friend remember that on 27th June, in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), he said that the ground for giving extra coupon concessions to nurses in hospitals was that it was important, on hygienic grounds, that they should have a good supply of stockings? Does not the same ground exist in the case of physiotherapists working in the same hospitals?
    Mr. Dalton: I understand that a physiotherapist is what used to be called in the old days a masseur, and I am advised by the Ministry of Health, who are great experts on these matters, and by the Department of Health for Scotland that the case for masseurs having an additional issue, is less strong than it is for other nurses, but I would be glad to look into it again. This is, admittedly, a borderline case. We have to draw the line for the concession somewhere, but I shall be happy to go into it again.
    Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that masseurs do not wear stockings, but that masseuses do? Would it not be better if these reactionary hospitals altered their rules as many hospitals have done to allow their staffs not to wear stockings?
    Mr. Dalton: I will consult the Ministry of Health on what the next step should be.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Whether my right. hon. Friend uses the old word or the new word, cannot he get a plain English word for these nurses?
    Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend would suggest a name, a short and simple English name, and I shall be glad to adopt it.
    Hon. Members: Rubbers.

  SPAIN AND PORTUGAL (WOLFRAM EXPORTS)
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether any commitments, and of what nature, were entered into with the Spanish and Portuguese Governments, respectively, with regard to compensation for the stoppage of exports of wolfram to Germany.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs announced on 2nd May, His Majesty's Government and the United States Government undertook, as a result of the agreement reached with the Spanish Government, to permit the renewal of oil shipments to Spain. There was no other commitment, but it was agreed at the time that there should be further discussions beween the three Governments to explore the possibility of in-

  985
  creasing trade between Spain and the British Empire and the United States. These discussions are now in progress. As regards Portugal, the action of the Portuguese Government in placing a complete prohibition on exports of wolfram was based on the special relationship between this country and Portugal, embodied in the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of Alliance. It did not, therefore, involve any new commitment. The Portuguese Government, however, expressed the hope that it would be possible to extend the existing arrangements for supplies from overseas and for the purchase of Portuguese commodities. Discussions on this subject also are now in progress.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Did the Minister make any kind of condition at the time that Spain should stop developing implements of war for Germany, such as the flying bomb, which was developed in Spain?
  Mr. Foot: That question is quite unconnected with the subject-matter of this Question.
  Mr. A. Edwards: As a matter of fact, I ask in the Question itself whether conditions were made. Surely it is very important that a condition should be made that the Germans should not use Spanish factories for developing German implements of war.
  Mr. Foot: I do not think that the particular story to which my hon. Friend has referred had received circulation at the time; but, of course, all imports into neutral countries are subject to certain conditions, which are, in short, that neither those, nor any similar commodities, are to be passed on in any shape or form to the enemy.
  Mr. Shinwell: As regards the last part of the Question, are we to understand that the question of compensation to the Spanish and Portuguese Governments for stopping the imports of wolfram into Germany is under consideration? Are we to provide compensation for these people?
  Mr. Foot: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will look at my original answer he will see that the question of compensation does not arise. What I said was that discussions were going on as to the possibility of increasing trade between Spain on the one side and the British Empire and United States on the other.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Protected Areas Order
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider an early modification of the conditions of entry into some restriction areas, with a view to enabling certain limited categories of people to evacuate to relatives living in relatively safe places within a restriction area.
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I have at present nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) last Thursday.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that there is a limited number of people who, in their own interests as well as in the national interest, should be able to stay with their relatives in the country? Can he not give this matter urgent consideration, because there appears to be no reason why, in certain parts of the restriction areas, this should not be done? Is this not a matter of very great importance?
    Sir J. Grigg: I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being given urgent consideration.
    Sir Herbert Williams: How long does it take to arrive at a decision when something is being given "urgent consideration," when ordinary people can make up their minds in about five minutes?

    Dependants' Allowances.
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War, if he can make a statement on the increase of allowances of dependants of men in the Services.
    Sir J. Grigg: This is one of the questions which will be covered by the statement on anomalies which will, I understand, be made soon.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Cannot the Minister come to an understanding at this stage, that nobody will be worse off as a result of the recent adjustment, either Servicemen or their dependants?
    Sir J. Grigg: That point does not seem to arise out of the Question.
    Mr. Edwards: Yes, it does.
    Miss Ward: Why was not an announcement previously made that this matter would be connected with the statement on

    987
    anomalies—or are there really to be two statements, covering the whole range of subjects?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think a statement will be made to cover the whole range of subjects. I was not quite aware at the time whether it would be a composite statement, or more statements than one.

    Palestine and Syria (Travel Warrants)
    Mr. Murrayasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the method of granting soldiers free travel warrants from Egypt to Palestine or Syria is not satisfactory; and whether he will endeavour to give facilities to these men for free return rail warrants to a specified station in Palestine, plus his ration allowance, so that men who do not desire to spend their 14 days' leave in an Army camp will not be penalised, but will be given the liberty of choice in this matter.
    Sir J. Grigg: These questions are now being examined.
    Mr. Murray: Is there not a great desire on the part of men who have been a long time away from home to visit some of these places of Biblical interest but at the present time the Regulations are materially operating against them?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in believing that the men are, even now, compelled to go to a leave camp. In any event, what is under consideration is the question of increasing the facilities.
    Mr. Murray: Is the Minister not aware that some penalties are imposed on these men if they do not go to the leave camp, in that they have to forgo, their high ration allowance, which is a very considerable amount—four guineas?
    Sir J. Grigg: I was not aware of that, and it is not consistent with my information. Perhaps my hon. Friend will write to me, giving the facts as he has been told them.
    Mr. Murray: I want to thank the Minister for that invitation, and to say that I have already sent the facts to him. That is why the Question is down.

    Normandy (Mails and Newspapers)
    Mr Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware
    988
    that mail and newspapers for the troops in Normandy take on average six days to arrive from England; and whether he can now effect speedier deliveries.
    Sir J. Grigg: Mails and newspapers are being despatched from this country and distributed to our troops in Normandy as quickly as operational conditions and the weather in the Channel will allow.
    Mr. Bellenger: Now that we have captured the port of Cherbourg, will the right hon. Gentleman see that mails and newspapers are delivered quickly to the troops, as these things are almost as important as some of their rations and ammunition?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should have thought that six days was pretty good, under present conditions.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister aware that the troops do not think so?
    Sir J. Grigg: My information is to the contrary.
    Sir H. Williams: If it was possible to take the Minister of Information there in three hours, might not the information itself be sent there nearly as quickly?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I was speaking to the mother of one of these lads yesterday, and was informed that six letters had been sent to him and that in the third letter which came from him yesterday, covering a period of three weeks, he said that he had not received one of those letters?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am prepared to believe that accidents have happened. A very large number of troops are involved, and an occasional accident is not entirely impossible. All I say is that, on the whole, the service is extremely good.

    Overseas Service
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War why two soldiers of whose names and numbers he has been informed, were sent on service behind the enemy lines after their period of five years overseas had already expired.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am making inquiries of the Command concerned and will then communicate with the hon. Member.
    Major C. S. Taylor: Is there a minimum period of home service, after five years' service overseas?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is another question, which I have endeavoured to answer on other occasions. We are trying to secure a minimum service, but it is not always possible.

    Women War Correspondents
    Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Secretary of State for War if British women correspondents are afforded the same facilities as Dominion women war correspondents.
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. British and Dominion women correspondents are afforded the same facilities for reporting the war.

    Release Application (Eastbourne)
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that Mr. P. S. Taylor, who is at present running a bakery business in Eastbourne, has a doctor's, certificate stating that his health will break down if he does not have a short rest from work, he will release his brother 10631046 Private H. V. Taylor from the service for three months compassionate leave to enable Mr. P. S. Taylor to rest and recuperate.
    Sir J. Grigg: This case has been very carefully considered on at least two occasions, and I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the replies which my hon. and gallant Friend has received.
    Major Taylor: As it appears that an essential food supply to a number of my constituents is likely to break down, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Forces, India ("V" cigarettes)
    Mr. Bartle Bullasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, despite announcements to the contrary, V cigarettes were still being issued to troops in India in May, 1944; and if he can give an assurance that V cigarettes are no longer issued to any of our troops.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India about the supply of cigarettes to troops in India or based on India. In other Commands, Indian cigarettes are no longer being issued.
    Mr. Bull: As my evidence is, I think, good, and as we had been given to under-
    990
    stand that the issue of these cigarettes had ceased, will my right hon. Friend suggest to the India Office that we ought to have a reply as soon as possible, whether that is so or not?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, I certainly will.
    Mr. Thorne: In connection with these cigarettes, can the Minister say why Customs duty has to be paid on cigarettes for soldiers in France?
    Sir J. Grigg: That point does not arise out of this Question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down, and I will then give him an answer. I think, anyhow, that it is a purely temporary phenomenon.

    Next-of-kin (Travel Warrants)
    Mr. Bartle Bullasked the Secretary of State for War if, when a telegram is sent to the next-of-kin of anyone in the services who is seriously ill, it could also be stated in the telegram that travel warrants can be obtained at the nearest police station.
    Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 21st March. The telegram which is sent to the next-of-kin of officers and men who are dangerously ill ends with the words "a return railway warrant for two persons, one a relative, will be issued on production of this telegram at the nearest police station."
    Mr. Bullasked the Secretary of State for War if, when next-of-kin apply for travel warrants to visit anyone in the Services who is seriously ill, police stations will be instructed to advise them that the local Red Cross liaison officer will meet them, take them to the hospital, find them billets and look after them while they are staying near the hospital.
    Sir J. Grigg: Although the local Red Cross liaison officer does all he can to help next-of-kin who are visiting patients in hospital it is, I understand, impossible to guarantee that he will know of their arrival or be able to find them billets near the hospital. Such arrangements as are possible are made as part of the work of the Red Cross on behalf of wounded and sick soldiers. My hon. Friend will appreciate that they are not made by the War Department.

  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, HAMPSHIRE
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give any information regarding the collision of two aeroplanes in Hants on Thursday last; how many people were killed, service men and others.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I understand that on the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers, two aircraft of the United States Army Air Forces crashed on take-off from an airfield in Hampshire. The second crash occurred within a few moments of the first. I regret to say that five British Service personnel, three British civilians and seven American Service personnel were killed. The House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives.

  SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES
  Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the elimination of anomalies in pay and allowances both to officers and other ranks in the Services.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir, not yet, but I hope that a statement will be made next week.

  NORMANDY OPERATIONS (SPECIAL EXPEDITIONS)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions to S.H.A.E.F. that they are not to give the names of persons taking part in special expeditions unless they are able at the same time to give an assurance as to the safety or whereabout of those individuals to their parents or relatives; and whether he is aware that a recent Press announcement giving such details has led to great pain and distress on the part of the next-of-kin.
  Mr. Attlee: Instructions to the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force emanate from the Combined Chiefs of the Staff at Washington. If, however, the hon. Member will give particulars of the matter in which he is interested, I have no doubt a personal inquiry could be made.
  Mr. Stokes: In a general way does my right hon. Friend agree that where officers or men take part in special raids, and are known at headquarters to be lost, prior notice should be given to their relations before their names are given in the Press?
  Mr. Attlee: I should like to have particulars.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Armed Forces, Mediterranean Area (Duty-Free Parcels)
    Major Yorkasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the maximum value for duty-free parcels which may be sent home by British soldiers from the C.M.F. and the M.E.F., in order to put them on the same basis as the United States troops serving in those areas.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on 28th June by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to which I have nothing to add.
    Major York: Would the Chancellor say whether any consultation has taken place with the United States Army authorities to see whether uniformity in the matter of postal services could not be made within a Command?
    Sir J. Anderson: It is not, primarily, a question of postal services, but a question of liability to pay Customs duties.
    Major York: Is it not the number of parcels, and the amount that can go into the parcels that are in question?
    Sir J. Anderson: It has not been considered primarily from that point of view.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is it not a fact that the present concession was made at a time when the communications between here and the Mediterranean were very much more extended than they are now?
    Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I do not think so. A further concession was made the other day. It is a question of duty-free parcels.
    Mr. Bellenger: Would the Chancellor pursue this matter further, because the amount of revenue that is derived by taxing these parcels from troops overseas,

    993
    who are not in a position to purchase large quantities, cannot be substantial, and if he can make this improvement, it would be very welcome among the troops serving overseas?
    Sir J. Anderson: I think that is perhaps open to question. There would be great inequalities between troops in areas where facilities were available, and those in areas where facilities were not available.

    "Salute the Soldier" Week, Burnley
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that, in the Burnley Salute the Soldier week, of the first £526,804 subscribed £200,000 was put up by the Burnley Building Society, £50,000 by each of four banks and £100,000 by the Borough Building Society; and whether he will see that comparable figures are obtained from all other Salute the Soldier weeks.
    Sir J. Anderson: In reply to the part of the Question, the total raised in the Burnley "Salute the Soldier" Week was £1,150,696, of which small savings accounted for £237,823. I am aware that particulars were published locally of the subscriptions to which the hon. Member refers. In reply to the second part, I see no objection to the continuation of the present practice, under which local committees may publish particulars of this character if the disclosure assists the local savings campaign and the consent of the subscribers has been obtained: otherwise I am not prepared to modify the rule that the sources and amounts of individual subscriptions should be kept confidential.
    Mr. Stokes: Am I to gather from the Chancellor's reply that where the subscriptions by the larger institutions form the major portion—a far greater proportion than the one quoted here—he will discourage their publication?
    Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I do not discourage publication at all. I leave it to the local committee.
    Mr. A. Edwards: What would be the position in the case of London recently when £10,000,000 more than the amount aimed at, was guaranteed before the week began? What was the purpose of all the "ballyhoo" and of spending £20,000 on all that nonsense in Trafalgar Square?
    Sir J. Anderson: As I have explained again and again, these large contributions do serve a very useful purpose.
    Mr. Edwards: The Chancellor always gets away with that, but is all this extravagance and cost justified by this small amount, which is only 20 per cent, of the total?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is a matter for debate but I absolutely disagree with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Stokes: Is not the whole object of these things to prop up an outworn monetary system?

    Great Britain and United States (Double Taxation)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement regarding the conversations which are taking place between the United States and British Governments with a view to coming to some agreement which will obviate double taxation and fiscal evasion in the case of their respective nationals.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid I can add nothing to what I said on this subject during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 23rd May, 1944. The discussions are taking place between the technical representatives of the two Governments and are, therefore, in the exploratory stage.
    Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the United States representatives have been here for six months, and that time marches on?
    Sir J. Anderson: As far as the Inland Revenue authorities are concerned, there has been no loss of time.

  HOUSING

    Ex-Service Men (Priority)
    Major Yorkasked the Minister of Health whether he will devise a scheme to give a high priority for houses to regular soldiers retired after the war, who, because of their terms of service, have never had a permanent home.
    Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. It has already been stated that considera-

    995
    tion will be given to the special claims of men returning from the Forces in regard to housing accommodation after the war, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that in settling priorities among ex-Service men the urgency of the need rather than the category of the service should be the determining factor.
    Major York: While agreeing with my hon. and gallant Friend in general, may I ask whether he is not aware that the regular soldier who is on long service has, in fact, no local authority, and could he not represent to the Minister of Health that this category of regular soldier will require special attention?
    Captain McEwen: Yes, Sir, I will bring that point to the notice of the Minister.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are no houses for the men to get? How are you going to deal with that problem when there are no houses for them?
    Mr. A. Edwards: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one of my constituents spent the whole of his leave recently looking for a house, never having had a home since he was married? He was told he would not get one for ten years. Can the Minister say, as permanent houses can be built more cheaply than temporary tin huts, that the policy of the Minister will be to produce permanent homes?
    Captain McEwen: I am sure that both these angles are in the Minister's mind.

    Sites (Grouping Scheme)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health to what extent it is his intention to use the group scheme for the preparation of 'housing sites, announced in Circular 14/44, to keep in being large organisations of building contractors so that they may be employed, if necessary, to do large constructional work outside Great Britain.
    Captain McEwen: The decision to use the grouping scheme for the advance preparation of housing sites was taken because the Government believe that in present circumstances this is the most economical and efficient method of doing this work. It was quite unconnected with any other intentions or possibilities.
    Mr. Bossom: Do I understand from my hon. and gallant Friend's reply that this group system is to be used entirely in Great Britain?
    Captain McEwen: I am afraid I do not know. I am not an expert.
    Sir H. Williams: To what extent were the people excluded by the group system consulted; or was advice taken only from the big six?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Regarding housing sites, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman refer to the Minister of Health the fact that the only way to get round the housing sites difficulty, is to nationalise the land?

  FLYING BOMBS (STATEMENT)
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I ask leave of the House to make a brief statement on Business. I think it would be for the convenience of the House that I should state now, that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement on Thursday on the flying bomb attack.
  Sir H. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend why the statement is being delayed until Thursday? Is he aware that the whole Press over the week-end contained a promise of this statement, and that the profoundest dissatisfaction will be felt by those in the areas affected, at this want of disclosure of information, which cannot be on security grounds, because if a disclosure is made on Thursday it will be just as dangerous as one made to-day? Is it because it takes such a long time to write it out? Why cannot we he told something now?
  Mr. Eden: I really do not accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of public opinion in this matter. The War Cabinet considered this matter very carefully last night, and we came to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend would be in a better position to make a full statement on Thursday than he is to-day. It is obvious to the House that many matters have to be weighed before a public statement on a matter of this kind can be made. It was agreed that a full statement should be made on Thursday. I ask the House to believe that, in the view of the Government, that is the best way to handle the matter.
  Sir H. Williams: Can we have an assurance that the spate of misleading information, issued presumably by the Air Ministry—optimistic dope—will be terminated until we have that statement?
  Mr. Eden: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by that, but I would ask him to believe that the Government have considered the position carefully, and, in deciding that Thursday was a better day than to-day to make a statement, we came to the conclusion not at all because we wished to withhold information, but because we can give more information on Thursday than we can to-day.
  Mr. Thorne: Will the Prime Minister also make a statement about the capture of Minsk?
  Mr. Eden: That event is, fortunately, already recorded.
  Mr. Bellenger: Will this statement be made in Secret Session, as it may be that some hon. Members would like to put questions to the Prime Minister which, for security reasons, cannot be dealt with adequately in public?
  Mr. Eden: The point that I was trying to make was that the statement is being made on Thursday, instead of to-day, in order to be able to make a fuller statement in public. It would be relatively easy to make a statement in Secret Session to-day. It may be that the House will wish to ask questions, or at some time to have a discussion on the matter. The Government do not exclude that. If there is to be a discussion, it will, for obvious reasons, have to take place in Secret Session. I suggest that we should first hear the Prime Minister's statement on Thursday.
  Mr. Bowles: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to consider opening those big underground shelters, of which he is no doubt aware?
  Mr. Eden: I could not go into that now. The matter has been dealt with before.
  Mr. A. Edwards: In view of the statement, which was made recently, that the flying bomb was developed through facilities offered by Franco, will the Prime Minister make a statement on that,
  998
  and, if that statement is proved correct, will he consider modifying the very flattering statement made by him about Franco some time ago?
  Mr. Eden: I have no information about that: I have no evidence of that kind; but I have heard the report. I should like to speak about it separately.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: What is to happen to the Questions on the Older Paper, to the Home Secretary, about sirens, shelters, and so on? Will they be dealt with by the Prime Minister on Thursday, and shall we be able to ask questions on them, or will they be dealt with by the Home Secretary?
  Mr. Eden: Of course, it will be open to the House to ask questions on the Prime Minister's statement. When I was dealing with the question by my hon. friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) just now, I was dealing with the point that some Members may wish to put questions in Secret Session. I will consider the point that my hon. Friend has just made.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible that, through the use of the diplomatic bag, people in foreign countries may know more about the situation than people in this country?
  Mr. Eden: That does not arise on this matter, but I can assure the hon. Member that it has been in my mind.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Wing-Commander James: I desire to raise a point of Order, and to ask your guidance, Sir, on a matter of which I have given you notice. I refer to Question 21 on to-day's Order Paper. I wish to ask, whether it will not become an abuse and a farce if Members are going to put down individual cases about their constituents, on compassionate grounds. We have all got these cases. I have three at the present moment, two of them pathetic, but they are not cases, I submit, to be dealt with by question and answer, except in exceptional circumstances, Would it not be a good thing if a Ruling were given that, except in exceptional circumstances, such individual cases should not be raised at Question Time?
  Major C. S. Taylor: May I point out that the subject-matter of this Question had been the subject of considerable correspondence with the War Office before I put the Question down? As a last resort, because I could get no satisfaction, I tabled this Question. Secondly, I would point out that the fact that this bakery business will probably have to close down means great hardship for a large number of my constituents.
  Wing-Commander James: May I point out that we have all got these hard cases, and that if we all put Questions down about them there would be no time for other questions?
  Mr. Speaker: This question has been raised once or twice before. I believe that the position is quite clear. Hon. Members should, as far as possible, either put down a non-oral Question or conduct the matter by correspondence. But there must be exceptional cases, when a Member feels that he is driven, perhaps by refusal, to put down a Question. While I deprecate putting down too many Questions of this kind, one must leave it to the common sense of Members.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES, 1942)
  Statement presented,—of the sums required to be voted to make good Excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended 31st March, 1943 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply and to be printed. [No. 89.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944)
  Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1945 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply and to be printed. [No. 90.]
  BILL REPORTED
    PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS OF THE POOR BILL [Lords]
    Reported, without Amendment Preamble not proved], from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; to lie upon the Table.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1944.

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, namely:

    Class VI., Vote 16, Department of Agriculture for Scotland

    £10

    Class X., Vote 17, Department of Agriculture for Scotland (War Services)

    £10

    £20

    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Measured by the employment it provides, agriculture is our greatest industry. At the last census in Scotland there were 176,000 persons who made their living by it. Our next largest industry was coalmining, with 132,000. But agriculture is more than our largest industry. It supplies the lifestream of the nation. Without continuous contact and reinvigoration from agriculture, our urban population would wither and die. In war-time we should have been starved into surrender, had not our farmers, farm-workers, scientists, technicians, and administrators united to increase the yield from our flocks, from our herds, and from our fields. Yet week after week goes by, and seldom is there a Question in this House about Scots agriculture. That does not mean that there are no grievances to be met, or improvements to be made, but it does, I think, mean that the machinery of the war agricultural executive committee and local consultation is functioning well and that the general relationship between farmers, farmworkers and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland could not have been bettered. Nevertheless, this absence of Questions on the Order Paper about agriculture certainly leaves me in gathering doubt as to the subject or subjects I

    1013
    should choose for commentary in presenting the agricultural Estimates for the next financial year.
    Apart from war services, the estimated increase of expenditure will be £138,000. I will not, I hope, unduly burden the Committee with figures, but hon. Members will be interested, I am sure, to know that the acreage under crops in 1943 was 2,120,700. That was an increase of 43 per cent. over the last prewar year, and it was 21,500 acres more than the acreage under crops in 1918, despite the loss of 300,000 acres of agricultural land since that year. In 1939——
    Mr. Gallacher: How was it lost?
    Mr. Johnston: It is lost to agriculture. It has been lost, for example, for aerodromes. In 1939, some 120,000 tons of seed potatoes were exported to England. From the 1943 crop, the comparable figure is, approximately, 473,000 tons, equal to an increase of 300 per cent. The number of allotments in Scotland in 1943 was 84,000, compared with just under 20,000 in 1939; and a peak of 43,000 in the last war. The estimated yield from our allotment system is 40,000 tons of vegetables. To assist production on marginal lands, grants in 1943 amounted to £126,670, an average of nearly £20 per farm assisted. The scheme is being intensified this year and £300,000 is provided in the Estimate for that purpose. Of land improvements and drainage, I can report that, since the outbreak of war, nearly 450,000 acres in Scotland have benefited by drainage schemes. On lime, our deliveries in Scotland for the year 1940–41 amounted to 190,000 tons. For 1943–44, that tonnage is increased to 550,000 tons. Since the beginning of 1943, 18 new limestone grinding plants have been established or arranged for construction in Scotland, involving a total tonnage of 172,500 tons per annum, or almost the entire total of deliveries we had in the year 1940–41. Regarding livestock and milk, our dairy cattle increased by nine per cent. since 1939. The proportion of cattle in the special and grade A categories in Scotland had risen from 82 per cent. in 1941, to 89 per cent. in 1943—a very considerable and gratifying increase. In Scotland, 25 per cent. of our milk producers are producing tuberculin tested milk. Our T.T. pro-
    1014
    duction is 33 per cent. of our total supply—again a very gratifying figure.
    Mr. Kirkwood: How does that compare with England?
    Mr. Johnston: It is a very considerable increase over the English proportion, but I do not want to enter into comparisons of that kind.
    Mr. Maxton: Is testing still going on on the same standard?
    Mr. Johnston: On mechanisation, our Scots farm tractor equipment has risen from a pre-war figure of 6,250 to over 20,000—again a very considerable and very gratifying increase. In harvest labour, the following are the particulars of the casual workers enrolled in 1943: 2,393 senior school girls enrolled for the raspberry crop; 7,500 volunteers enrolled for the grain harvest, and 55,560 schoolchildren for the potato crop. There are expected to be increased numbers for the current harvest. All these arrangements are being made, where our school-children are concerned, in close association with the education authorities. Industrial volunteers, fortunately, are coming forward in large and in increasing numbers for the harvest. They are now 4,500, which is more than four times those recruited last year, and I am in hopes that we will be able to evolve this system of "holidays with pay" in certain of our industries on a voluntary basis in the post-war years.
    We in Scotland are a nation of food exporters—A remarkable fact. The total United Kingdom food production—I beg my hon. Friends to note these figures—is estimated to be 22,500,000 tons, excluding fish. Of that 22,500,000 tons, we in Scotland produce 14 per cent. On the basis of the Ministry of Food's international investigations and calculations—that we consume 990 pounds' weight of food per man, woman and child—it follows that we in Scotland feed ourselves, and export nearly a million tons in oats, beef, sheep and potatoes, and, I can add, 150,000 tons of fish. These are remarkable figures.
    Mr. Kirkwood: But they may expand.
    Mr. Johnston: I hope to see the day when they will. Most of the leaders of our Scottish agricultural industry are

    1015
    naturally concerned about the long-term prospect—prices, markets, security against the dumping of foreign surplusses at non-economic prices and so on. Milk and livestock have, therefore, already been given guaranteed prices for four years—that is, until 1948. The future prospects in cereals and potatoes are now being discussed with the leaders of industry. Meanwhile, prices are to be reviewed in February every year. What other system of price arrangement will obtain in the years that are to be, I will not venture to prophesy. It may be that import boards regulating the inflow of imported potatoes to the absorptive capacity of our markets will be provided, but whatever may be the method of price-fixing for producers, I, personally, very much hope that we shall pay far more attention than we have hitherto done to the nutritional requirements of our people, by that means assuring a tremendous expansion in our home market. We need not wait upon decisions about international trade, quotas or the like. We in Scotland are beginning—hesitatingly, tentatively, but beginning—to pursue experiments in the way of instructing our next generation of housewives upon the most attractive methods of cooking our own Scottish basic products. The domestic science courses in the schools and the cinema screen are good avenues to the new nutrition and to the stabilisation of our home production in our fields, and on our hills and our coasts.
    It was, the Committee may remember, the Lanarkshire school milk experiment in 1930 which formed and still forms to-day the basis of our great national school milk consumption. There was also a rather remarkable experiment, to which, unfortunately, insufficient public attention was given, in Scotland at all events, of a method of disposing of surplus potatoes at Bishop Auckland in Durham, and the Empire Marketing Board away back in 1929 by a propaganda effort, increased threefold the weekly sale of select Scots graded and marked sides of beef in the London market. The resultant effect upon price was immediate. I certainly do not think that the possibilities of organised selling by home producers in our home market have even been seriously considered, and anything that I can do—and I am happy to say that I know I have the heartiest concurrence of my right hon.
    1016
    Friend the Minister of Agriculture in England in this matter—to stimulate discussion for the better marketing of our primary products and for the disposal of surpluses in such a way that they will not ruin the producers, will be done.
    If I may express a purely personal point of view, the one serious handicap to a long-term guarantee of stability and assured prices in industry—and I am all for it—is a widespread fear that a great part of any assistance given to agriculture, may disappear in land speculation, and that unjust and unwarranted rent-raising may absorb part—only part—of what the nation would be willing to see devoted to an increase in agricultural well-being. It is not only here and there that a landlord may seek to extract rents beyond any reasonable figure of recompense for his outlays on farm buildings, for example, but do not let us forget the owner-occupier who may capitalise his guaranteed prices, and sell out to needy and anxious buyers at greatly enhanced figures. That certainly happened in the boom period immediately following the last war, and I have already evidence that there is again a beginning of that sort of thing. No fewer than 23 per cent. of our Scottish tenancies are held by owner-occupiers, and when we get to the larger farmers of over 300 acres, the proportion of owner-occupiers rises to 38 per cent. I want to prevent to-day owners-occupiers from capitalising any assistance given to agriculture, and selling that assistance to needy purchasers. I venture to express the opinion that sooner or later, Land Court machinery of some kind——
    Mr. Kirkwood: Nationalise the land.
    Mr. Johnston: I am dealing with prices at the moment. Land Court machinery of some kind, even if the State should own the land, will require to be used to prevent exploitation, either in rent increases or in selling price increases. I do not for a moment dispute the necessity of ensuring a just return to every section of the industry for any buildings, equipment or any other service rendered. Indeed, there are instances where the inadequacy of farm buildings is simply due to the fact that no one now is likely to provide the capital without being assured of an adequate return. If farm buildings are to be improved, if the status and standing of the agricultural

    1017
    worker is to be improved, and there is to be a development of amenity in our greatest industry, then a just price must be paid for the product, but let us see to it that the just price reaches the right person. I have said that there are great and practically unexplored methods of developing the home market for the home producers, but the speculator, the re-grater and the exploiter require to be prevented from harassing this great industry With their exactions.
    May I say a word about the one section of our agricultural industry where conditions have not been satisfactory, and that is, hill sheep farming? As the Committee knows, we appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh on 20th November, 1941. That committee reported on 13th December, 1943, and we published its report on 10th January, 1944. Since then, all the hill sheep interests have had an opportunity of discussing among themselves the implications of that report. They sent me on 29th March a memorandum giving me their considered views. I have met their representatives to consider and to discuss that memorandum. They accept, in the main, the ordered programmes of improvement recommended in the report but they disagree with the proposed scheme of disposing Of surplus store lambs. Instead, they put forward a proposal for a subsidy on wedder lambs retained on farms. I have also had a memorandum within the past few days from the Land and Property Federation, indicating their general approval of the main recommendations of the report. But howsoever it is settled, it is clear that the problem of the disposal of store lambs surplus to feeders' requirements in any given year is one of the key problems of this industry. In years of large lamb crops the surplus ought not be the means by which prices are battered down to non-economic levels.
    The Balfour of Burleigh Committee made a recommendation as to one method by which this ruinous process can be avoided, and a bottom fixed in the producers' market prices. The industry itself now suggests an alternative method that they think will settle this problem. This method we are now examining in detail with representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and with the hill sheep interests, and my right hon.
    1018
    Friend the Minister for Agriculture and I are now discussing the other major question referred to in the Burleigh report, the recommendation for a wool marketing board. I am hopeful, however, that by amicable arrangement with the Forestry Commission some of the most depressed hill sheep areas and farms will be put to forestry purposes and part of the hill sheep industry problem, thereby automatically solved.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Forestry Commissioners are likely to be difficult?
    Mr. Johnston: Not perhaps unduly difficult. There are still areas of deer forests reported upon by the Land Court as suitable for grazing sheep and cattle, where sheep and cattle have not, so far, been provided. Last month, a rough preliminary estimate, of the return shows that the present stocking of the deer forests amounts to 127,000 sheep, and 4,000 cattle, but there are still vacant acres for 72,000 sheep and 3,000 cattle. In 1939, I requested the executive committees in the Highland areas to get more use made of the grazing resources of suitable deer forests where the owner was willing to negotiate lets or longer leases to stock owners. The committees were asked to do everything in their power to promote these arrangements; failing that, the committees were invited to make recomendations that I should take possession under the Defence Regulations of these forests for the purpose of letting the grazing to suitable applicants. The committees were informed that I would be ready to take possession of any suitable forest, which could not be put to full productive use by agreement with the owners. We have already taken possession of eight deer forests under these Regulations, covering 169,000 acres. Four of them are managed by the agricultural executive committees on behalf of the department; three by direct management of the Department of Agriculture; one has been let. They are now all grazing cattle and sheep. One of them is at Torosay in Mull, where we took possession in June, 1941. The stocks now numbers 3,600 wedders and 80 cattle. The wool clip alone, in two years has been sold for £1,120. We have made improvements in fences, repaired buildings, cut bracken, drained the land and, notwithstanding this expenditure, the financial return on that particular forest

    1019
    showed a surplus of £1,000 for the whole period of management.
    Mrs. Hardie: The right hon. Gentleman said that the land was taken over under Defence Regulations. Does that mean it will be handed back to the owner at the end of the war if he wishes to take it?
    Mr. Johnston: Not necessarily; and, in any case, if it was handed over, it would be with compensation to the State. I do not think the hon. Lady need be worried about that aspect of this problem. I am not arguing at all in favour of centralised management in the use of these deer forests; I am merely saying that there are instances where the forests, or part of them, can be put to productive use, and I am sure that the agricultural executive committees will do everything in their power to see to it that recommendations are forthcoming in suitable cases. All these great experiments and ventures in land, in increased tractor equipment, in agricultural co-operation and consultation, in practical demonstration and advice, in improved yield and efficiency, surely ought not to be allowed to lapse or disappear with the war but, should be extended and developed, to provide added wealth and better nutrition to the nation, and a more adequate livelihood and recompense to our primary producers.
    Mr. Snadden: It is a privilege to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I think everyone will agree that he has given the Committee a most able and comprehensive account of Scottish agricultural affairs. I think we all desire to congratulate him on his speech, and to wish him well in his great but not very enviable task of grappling with the many and complex problems which confront the Department of State of which he is head. But he is fortunate in having at his side two capable Joint Under-Secretaries and I think the Under-Secretary with whom we have to deal to-day has, if I may say so, made it his job to get about the country, to go amongst his farmers, and to get under their skins. In this way I think he has come to appreciate their manifold difficulties. I know that they appreciate what he has done; I should say they are
    1020
    well served at the Scottish Office and I see no reason why anyone should withhold credit where credit is due.
    While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I could not help looking back along the road which we have travelled. I believe that this battle of the land will go down in history as one of the great victories of this war. In fact, to say that a miracle has been enacted is no overstatement, if we recall that in the period between the last war aria this, in Scotland alone, cultivation was disappearing at the rate of 1,000 acres every year. Every year there were 100 fewer farms and crofts in Scotland, and every year 1,000 workers were leaving the land. It seems only yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, had to be taken up to Aberdeenshire to see the barren and derelict oat areas up and down that great county. Finally, when the curtain rose on this war, very few people seem to appreciate that 17,250,000 acres, more than half of the total cultivable acres of Britain, were lying in permanent grass, much of which were in a state of semidereliction—ditches choked, hedges uncut, rushes flourishing over arable land. That was the pre-war picture. Contrast that with the conditions to-day. In spite of an acute shortage of labour, in spite of the curtailment of imports of fertilisers and feeding-stuffs, and in spite of the great effort required to bring back thousands of acres of derelict land to cultivation, we find that the farming country as a whole—I am speaking on Great Britain figures, because I do not know what is the Scottish proportion—is producing three-quarters of the food we eat. Our agricultural output is the highest of any agricultural country in the world and two and a half times that of the German farmer. I suggest that that is a pretty good story, and that the right hon. Gentleman has shown that Scotland has played a worthy part in it, for our production per acre, except for sugar beet, which is less, and for oats, which is the same, is in every case higher than that of our English friends.
    Although the struggle to maintain our position as the greatest quality producers of livestock in the world has been difficult, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) knows, and at times even desperate, because of the Government's policy, which ever since this war

    1021
    began has definitely discouraged quality, especially in beef, we have succeeded in holding the field, holding the field in crop production and in beef production and in quality milk. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, 33 per cent, of our total gallonage production is tuberculin-tested, against six per cent. South of the Border. Here I welcome the recent announcement regarding the attested herds scheme, and would like to press that it should now be carried to its logical conclusion by transferring the responsibility for the administration of the Scottish end of the scheme to where it should be, which is in the Department in Edinburgh. It is nonsense to deal with the problem of animal health in Scotland from Whitehall, and note ought to be taken of that fact.
    I would also ask the Under-Secretary if he would clear this point about which there seems to be some difficulty. Does the attested herd scheme cover beef cattle as well as dairy cattle? I have heard "Yes" and "No" and I do not know which is correct. The right hon. Gentleman referred to milk, and here I would raise only one point, and that is that since the war began there has been a little confusion in the minds of the public in regard to milk. The Scottish Milk Marketing Board's figures are 31 per cent. higher as regards the sale of liquid milk than they were before the war. The lesson which we learn from that is that when milk is cheap people will buy it. The shortage to-day is not due to under production but to an overwhelming expansion of consumption, which I hope will continue, Looking at these facts I suggest one is justified in saying that the battle of the land has been well fought, and I would go further by saying, as a farmer myself, that our success has been due in no small measure to the co-operation of everybody concerned in this effort—the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, our War Agriculture Executive Committees and last, but not least, the farmers and the farm workers, and among the workers I would include the land girls and all the volunteers who have come out from the cities to work. All have played their full part in what has been a great combined operation—a mass attack against starvation.
    Because of the restriction which we Scottish Members impose upon ourselves in Debate it is not possible in the space
    1022
    of 15 minutes to tackle a subject so vast, so technical and so fundamental as agriculture. We are now in the fifth year of the war, with our agricultural machine pretty well run in and running steadily in top gear. The Secretary of State pointed out that there have not been many questions upon agriculture, and that is not surprising after the machine has been run in for five years, and I do not propose to raise many questions of detail which could be dealt with through other channels. I should like to address myself a little later to other things, but before doing that I suggest that it would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could give us a little more guidance in regard to this year's harvest labour. The Secretary of State mentioned some figures, but I am not quite satisfied about the position, because, as we all know, the soldiers have gone away and the farmers in my part of the world are a little worried about the future position in regard to volunteer labour, the position in regard to Irish labour for the potato harvest and the arrangements made respecting school children. If he could tell us what he has succeeded in doing in this direction I am sure the Committee would be grateful.
    The other point which I regard as of immediate importance is in regard to the future prospects for our tillage programme. If the Under-Secretary could give us some indication of whether or not the 1945 tillage programme is to be relaxed we should be much obliged. Our land to-day has lost a little of its fertility. I do not think it has lost a very great deal, but it has lost some, and is showing signs of strain. A great deal of it is becoming dirty, and there is no question that it is badly needing a rest, and I hope that the Department will find it possible this year to relax somewhat their tillage programme. Moreover, if we are to turn our attention, as we ought, to our livestock production we shall have to release some more land to grass. On our marginal farms there should be a definite turn towards the proper function of those farms, which is stock rearing. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can say something along those lines. There is no reason why we should adopt a hush-hush attitude on the question of crop production. Farmers have to plan ahead, and it is the future with which they are concerned, and about which I should like to say a word.

    1023
    A few months ago there appeared a pamphlet published by the Tory Reform Committee called "The Husbandman Waiteth." I am not a member of that Committee. I cannot say that apart from the attractive pictures in it and the intriguing title I found the report contained anything very original. It seemed to me to go along rather familiar lines. But the title was certainly well chosen, and if my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) were here I would compliment him on it. It struck me straight away to ask: What is it that the husbandman is waiting for? I was forced to look up my Bible to see the text, and I came to the conclusion that it was the precious fruits of the earth referred to in James V, 7. But there is something else which he is looking for. At this moment he is looking for a post-war policy and he has certainly "had long patience for it." I do not suppose the Under-Secretary can add very much to what the right hon. Gentleman has said in that connection, and I say that because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture pales at the mere mention of post-war policy, having told us in fact at that Box that he was under instructions not to speak about it. Therefore, it may be a little unfair to ask the Under-Secretary to answer this question, but it is certainly what the husbandman is waiting for.
    He is beginning to wonder, and not without reason, whether the seed which was sown a long time ago and which seemed to be springing up so promisingly has not, after all, fallen on stony ground. If it has why not say so and be done with it, because agriculture learned long ago how to swallow its medicine? It is high time we had some more guidance as to the future. Of course, we have had the recent declaration of Government policy in regard to live stock prices up to 1948. That was a welcome announcement, probably the most important announcement yet made by the Government, because they had not made any before. It certainly allows the farmer to plan some distance ahead, but when an hon. Member for one of the divisions in the North of England, I think the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), intervened in a Debate the other day upon food, and said that farmers should be grateful, in my view he went
    1024
    too far, because I think he had forgotten that one of the few things we can be certain about when this war is over is that we shall face a world shortage of animal products. Occupied Europe alone has lost 11,000,000 cattle, 12,000,000 pigs and 11,000,000 sheep, and these losses have to be replaced. On top of that the Argentine, because of abnormal war demands, has suffered a reduction of 568,000 head since 1941, and has now become worried about the excessive slaughter of cows.
    Facing a world shortage of animal products, and especially meat, it is no wonder the Government can give a guarantee up to 1948. If they did not prices would sky rocket. The weakness of the plan is that it is too short, because obviously you cannot base a livestock policy on a four-year guarantee, and that is a question to be considered not only from the point of view of Scotland but for the whole of Britain. We are greatly in need of guidance as to the direction which expansion should take in Scotland. In the recent Debate on the Vote for the Ministry of Food the hon. Member for East Aberdeen and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member fat Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) indulged, a little facetiously I thought, in a sparring match about wheat and sugar beet. I am not going to enter into that dispute, but the right hon. and gallant Member was thinking in terms of food shortages and the hon. Member for Aberdeen thought he was talking about postwar agricultural policy; but I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen when he said that we cannot have a policy based upon wheat and sugar. The Wheat Act of I930 was a great technical success but that was all. It did nothing to solve our farming problem. It only enlarged the wheat acreage by two per cent. of our total of crops and grass and it ended up by ruining the oat growers of Aberdeenshire.
    I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that 80 per cent. of Scotland's output and nearly 70 per cent. of England's prewar agricultural output was derived from livestock and livestock products. Out of Scotland's total, £41,000,000, beef was an easy first at £10,750,000, milk and dairy produce came second at £8,250,000, sheep and lambs, third, at just over £8,000,000. Potatoes and oats, of which we hear so much, important as they are, fell far short

    1025
    of the figures for livestock even when taken together. Therefore, it is obvious to me that what we need first and foremost for Scotland is a livestock policy. After all, livestock is what Scotland is best suited for and what our farmers are most skilled in. Hon. Members who represent Aberdeenshire constituencies will have noticed when they have been in that county during the past few months how their fine quality cattle are gradually disappearing. Why? Because of the great switch over to milk. I do not think that is a bad thing, but the tendency has spread up to Aberdeenshire and is showing itself in a vast deterioration in the quality of the cattle in the foremost county of Britain. That is a serious position. We cannot live on milk alone in Scotland, and the livestock side of agriculture has been completely out of balance ever since this war began, and in my view it will not be put right until the wide gap between milk and beef is closed. It is closing now, but it will not be properly closed until there is a real effective premium upon the well bred quality steer calf. If there is not such a premium the farmer will not rear them. If we fail to attend to that in my view we shall be at the mercy of the Argentine and Eire when this war is over.
    Something has been done to restore that position, but we do not seem to have any real plan. It is a plan which I should like to have discussed. I think we ought to have a separate Debate on this subject if it could be arranged, because it is clearly a very difficult question and one which is going to affect the small man. I say that because I believe economic milk production will be based upon the large milking unit, a unit of sufficient size to warrant modern machinery being introduced, a unit of not less than 30 cows, and even that may be too low. Now I cannot see an economic future for the beef producer unless he has a large turn-over. It will not do to turn out what we have been doing in the past. The small man may, therefore, be forced to turn his attention in some other direction, possibly calf rearing, but up to the moment we have had no guidance whatever on this subject.
    In conclusion, I would say a word about what the right hon. Gentleman said regarding the Balfour Report. I had intended to go for him because he had not
    1026
    said anything in his speech, as I did not think he would refer to it, and therefore, I have to modify in some respects what I should otherwise have said. He is now discussing this very important document, and I think it is rather extraordinary that this House should not have had an opportunity of discussing it. We discussed the Forestry Report, and here is another Report, of a very able Committee, a most important document, and there has been no opportunity of discussing it and it is obviously impossible to do so to-day. This hill sheep industry is a vastly more important industry than many people imagine. Two-thirds of the entire surface of our country is mountain and heath, and, as I have tried to point out, the mutton and lamb produced from our hills are very nearly as important to Scotland as milk production. The Balfour Committee paint a gloomy picture of the hill sheep industry. They tell us that the fertility of the past has gone and that this industry will die a slow death from exhaustion unless State and industry combine to restore it. But they do not provide any magic carpet upon which the hill farmer can step which will whisk him off to more solid economic grounds. Some opportunity should be afforded Members of Parliament to express their opinions in regard to that Report before we get legislation, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see that we have an opportunity of discussing the Report.
    A Herring Bill was presented to Parliament the other day, but I suggest that herrings are not as important to Scotland. The output of mutton and lamb from the Scottish hills is three times the value of the herring, and so it is high time we looked into the question of our hill sheep industry. I believe that our 10,000,000 acres of hill land can be made more productive, and I say that speaking with a little practical experience of a pretty extensive enterprise. The Secretary of State is now building reservoirs for hydro-electric supplies; he ought also to build reservoirs of store cattle in the hills and glens of Scotland, and I suggest that he should now give a definite guarantee for ten years that the Hill Cattle Scheme which has worked so excellently should be continued. I cannot imagine anything that would encourage enterprise more than a guarantee that this scheme should be continued for that period.
    Mr. McKie: With regard to what the hon. Member is saying about the encouragement of cattle on the upland pastures, a gentleman to whom I was speaking told me that the present rate of financial assistance is not sufficient having regard to the present price of store cattle.
    Mr. Snadden: I do not know that I would agree with what the hon. Member's friend said. I think the cattle scheme could be improved by way of a differentiation in favour of the home breeder. At the moment the Irishman greatly benefits. I should like to see Scottish animals, bred on our own hills, given discriminatory assistance in their favour, but apart from that I think the scheme is reasonably adequate though no doubt some would like a little more.
    I have perhaps spoken rather too long, and I would end by saying that although we in Scotland cannot be accused of inefficiency in any way either in crop production or in milk or anything else I do recognise that we must press on hard towards increasing our efficiency. I have never been one to believe that agricultural survival lies along the road of old-fashioned ideas, and I believe that the future of our country in terms of agriculture will depend upon quality, and that is a good sound thing to depend upon. It will depend upon the quality of our livestock, the quality of our beef, the quality of our milk, mutton and lamb, and I suggest that it is time we had far more guidance as to the future than we have had up to date. I am sure that, given reasonable security, and also given an opportunity which in the past has been denied to us, Scottish agriculture will fulfil its obligations in peace as well as it has done in war.
    Mr. Mathers: When we come to deal in Committee with the Scottish Estimates for agriculture we feel that we are dealing with something that is fundamental, and I am sure that that thought has been borne out to-day by the Secretary of State himself in the fine review of the position which he gave us, and also in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Snadden). I am not going to deal with the same points as have been dealt with by my hon. Friend who preceded me, but in passing I would say that he entered into a realm that it would be very
    1028
    difficult for anyone from this side of the Committee of the party to which I belong to follow, and that was to criticise an authoritative party statement and to approve of nothing except its title. One felt inclined when he was discussing that report, although commending its title, to ask "What's in a name?". The name does not matter so much; what matters is the policy that is propounded in the document. The Secretary of State gave us a very good picture and showed us also that he was not unaware of some of the dangers that beset the industry of agriculture. In a kind of parenthetic way he expressed his personal view that one of the greatest dangers was the possibility of exploitation of the prices for land by owner-occupiers and he indicated that he was on the alert to take every possible action, under the powers he has or may be given to check that particular tendency, which he said was already in evidence.
    He made reference to the need for some sort of rent court or land court. We have the opportunity at the present time of seeing the Scottish Land Court working very effectively. We are hearing more about it to-day that we heard in times gone by, and we reflect with pleasure that the present head of it is a former Member of this House who, as I think it is generally conceded, is doing very well as Chairman of the Land Court. He has certainly devoted a great deal of attention and interest to the work that lies to his hand in his important office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also referred to the powers he has and the way he has used them to fill up vacancies for the grazing of deer forests. We are glad that the matter is being tackled as it is being done. It was good to hear how very successful my right hon. Friend had been in taking over some of these deer forests, notably in the Island of Mull, where, as he showed us, an immense improvement had been made.
    My right hon. Friend also recited big figures about Scottish production in one way and another, and it struck me that he might also have said that, as Secretary of State, he is the biggest agricultural landowner in Scotland. The acreage in the ownership of the State now must be nearly 500,000 acres—a considerable portion of the agricultural land in Scotland. On that land we have, for nearly 3o years now, been building up a new

    1029
    body of agricultural workers on Government holdings. We have been establishing and developing people who have become specialists and experts in many directions. On these holdings pig-keeping, poultry-keeping, dairying, fruit production, bee - keeping, market gardening, and production under glass have been carried on, as well as the growing of cereal and root crops and the raising of livestock. The people on these holdings, it can be said, have made good, and this Scottish development under the of the State is a development that must not stop. The opportunities for holders must be increased. Before the war, whatever the position is now—and I believe it is still about the same—there was still a large number of unsatisfied applications for holdings in Scotland. What chances have these people to develop? What chances will their sons, who have been trained with them, have after the war? Normally, a farmer or owner-occupier of a farm looks forward to his son following in his footsteps. If he has a family of sons he tries to get farms for them and put them in possession. That kind of succession should be encouraged by the Department of Agriculture.
    To enable my right hon. Friend to answer these questions and to decide upon the proper policy in matters of that kind, I would like to suggest that he, personally, should get down to the problem in a practical way. I know how busy he is and how very precious his time is, and that much of what he has to decide must necessarily come to him secondhand. But in this matter I want him to endeavour to get first-hand knowledge, and not to depend upon recommendations from his Department, however carefully prepared. I am not saying anything against the officials at St. Andrew's House, because I and my constituents have found them very helpful indeed, but I ask him to get away from the people with red tape in their hands and red ink on their fingers, and go among the practical people with red soil on their boots so that he may learn things at first-hand. I am sure that the technical staff of his Department would be able to put him into touch with these people and that they would advise him on what should be his policy in future, in relation to matters of agricultural interest, in many directions. The agricul-
    1030
    ture that is being pursued on these holdings now has many facets and is not confined to any one branch. My right hon. Friend will get from these people real guidance in dealing with the problems which must be faced. If he would take the advice I am giving him now, he would find how very valuable is the work of the technical people in his Department, and he would find how popular they are with the many people who are holders of land under the Department of Agriculture. It is not a question of looking at things as a stranger. I have found that the technical people in his Department have been very much alive to the needs of these holders, and that their advice has been very gratefully accepted.
    The Minister would find grievances on some of these holdings. For instance, lie would find some farm buildings, not houses, in a dilapidated condition. He would find dry privies instead of proper sanitary accommodation. He would find roads which needed repair. Where a road is serving a number of holders, I have had more than one experience of the fact that these holders are willing and anxious that the job of making the road good should be done in a thorough fashion. They do not mind the cost being spread among them by an addition to their rents. My right hon. Friend would be asked about the position with regard to prices after the war, and in particular, whether the £10 per acre subsidy for potatoes is to continue. He would also get problems put to him that do not come strictly within his own purview. He would find that injustice is felt by Scottish growers of tomatoes and strawberries about the way in which the English price is the ruling price, so that they do not have an opportunity of a good price at the beginning of the sale of these crops, in the same way that the English producer has. In respect of tomatoes and strawberries, it is well known that the quality of the Scottish product is much better than that of the English product. My right hon. Friend would find criticism, again, in comparison with England, at the fact that glass houses used for the production of such crops are not rated in England, whereas they are rated in Scotland. Holders feel that this is an unjust burden upon them. I cannot go into' this question at length to-day without being out of Order. I simply use it as

    1031
    an illustration of the kind of thing that would be put to my right hon. Friend, if he took my advice and went among these holders.
    But my right hon. Friend would not find only complaints; he would find great satisfaction among holders and their wives at the good conditions under which they live. It is not many weeks since I met the wife of a holder who told me how, on getting up in the morning, she looked out of her windows and saw in the distance a ring of hills. I was about to say to her "It is enough to make you sing the 121st Psalm," when she herself said she felt like saying:
    '"I to the hills wi:1 lift mine eyes"
    which, as everyone knows, is the I21st Psalm. So I say that my right hon. Friend would not find his journeying throughout these holdings in any way depressing. It would encourage him to see the splendid use to which the land is being put by these people, who I claim are the pick of the agricultural community in Scotland. I am urging that these opportunities should be extended after the war. The Secretary of State might ask, "Where is the land to come from?" He has indicated one source of increase. There is land being used for aerodromes which will probably come back to us after the war is over, and once again became agricultural land. There are the farms which have been taken over during the war, because they had not been properly farmed. They have been improved. It is not likely that the previous occupiers will desire to pay for the improvements which have been carried out during the time that the farms have been out of their possession. That is land which might be used in the way I recommend. Other land must be purchased, no doubt.
    It is clear that some holdings will be lost by our post-war housing development and the holders will require to be placed on new land. Holders thus dispossessed, it seems to me, should have a first claim on the new holdings. Following upon them will be the fully skilled ex-Service men, the sons of the fine new type of agriculturist that I have mentioned, men with experience and the capital available, who would carry on the succession to which I have referred. Then we come to other experienced men such as farm grieves, like those who have
    1032
    established these holdings in past years, men who know how to run holdings whether large or small. Then we should require to provide for men with no agricultural experience, who come back from the war. It would be well to place such men with the best of the present holders, and train them on these farms if they were anxious to go in for land work. In co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, who are setting themselves to train men after the war, here is a realm in which they could be trained, not necessarily disabled men but men who want to take up agriculture in the years that lie ahead. After they had six months' training, the farmer whom they were helping would probably be willing to pay part of their wages, and at the end of a year they would be earning full wages. Then any question of training subsidy would cease. Later on, these men would probably want to remain with the people who had employed them, and make a permanency for themselves in this kind of work. It would be necessary, therefore, to provide for them and their wives living on or near the holdings on which they were working. That would encourage them to remain on the land, and they in turn would probably want to take up holdings of their own, and we should have the satisfaction of knowing that they had been properly trained and were efficient for using the land as holders.
    These measures would result in a better and more contented agricultural population, and a more efficient and prosperous agricultural industry and would make the best of the land at our disposal. To achieve this, many things are needed. The first is a proper water supply. Then there is the need for laying on electrical supplies. I know cases of people who make their own electricity, in order to heat incubators, and who are getting concerned about the possible breakdown of the plant that they have established. It seems wrong that electricity should be made in a small way, to serve the needs of one holder who goes in for poultry breeding. The apprehension of the individual holder is understandable because the breakdown of his electricity-producing machinery would result in the loss perhaps of 1,000 or more hatching eggs—a very serious loss to him. It would be for the Department to lay on the electricity, because it would be too much to expect that the holder should stand-in,

    1033
    for the transformers necessary in dealing with the high-tension cables which run through different parts of the country. I believe that if supplies were provided, the holder would readily pay for them; there would be no loss and in the long run it would cost nothing at all to the Department.
    I have only one other point, in regard to harvest labour. I believe this is a very valuable means of increasing the labour given to farmers at harvest time and I should like to see it continued after the war. There are hostels, big houses which have been taken over, and which will never be tenanted by the owners again. There are huts and camps which could be used by people who find their holiday, not in idleness but in another kind of work. They come from the towns and work in the countryside during harvest time, and find it all to the good of their health and it would be making a real contribution to the harvest labour in the years after the war. We have rather made a "stunt" of it during the war but I believe it could be made a permanent feature of agricultural activity. I commend to the Secretary of State these suggestions, tentative though they are, and I believe that along the lines I have indicated we could make a real contribution to the further improvement of Scottish agriculture.
    Mr. McKie: I am sure the Committee has listened with great interest to the hon. Member's speech. He will forgive me if I do not follow him in the flights of fancy that he has taken. I want to address myself to some of the points which have been made by the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden). Again we all listened with very great interest to the brief but comprehensive survey that the right hon. Gentleman gave of agricultural affairs, but I should like to take him up with regard to one or two of the points that he raised in connection with the land system of Great Britain as a whole. He was speaking about the possible, and, indeed, I think he went so far as to suggest the actual, speculation that was going on in agricultural land in Scotland. He spoke also about rent increases. I think that he must agree that, on reflection, so far as farms on large estates are concerned, there has been practically no increase of rent in these war years. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he has
    1034
    any instances in mind I shall be happy to hear of them.
    Mr. Johnston: I made it perfectly clear that the thing has not gone very far yet and that there were any number of owners of agricultural land who were playing the game. Indeed, I go so far as to say that some of the farms are under-rented. That does not get over the difficulty that has arisen when we get farms during the war jumping in rent from £700 to £1,100, and when we get increases of rent of £500, £400 and so on, all of which are before us now. I beg of my hon. Friend, and those who support him, to believe me that it is in the best interests of agriculture that I made the remarks that I made to-day.
    Mr. McKie: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the figures he has given, and I say at once that I am in whole-hearted agreement with him regarding such cases. The figures he quoted are shameful and they will be a revelation to the Committee, and to the public of Scotland and Great Britain as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say something about speculation in agricultural property, and I take it that what he said about the landlord system with regard to rents in general will also apply to his remarks on possible speculation on agricultural land. Then he suggested that owner-occupiers who had bought their farms in the past few years had been going in for this kind of speculation. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any instances, and I do not ask him to give any now, but he suggested that owner-occupiers had gone in for the same thing after the last war. The right hon. Gentleman will know better than I do, because he has lived longer and has had considerably more experience of public affairs in Scotland. He wrote in the past an illuminating book on land tenure in Scotland, and he will be aware that about 1920 there were very few owner-occupiers compared with the number that exist to-day. I was not aware at that time that owner-occupiers were going on the principle of "cashing in" as soon as they could on the farms which they were obliged in many cases to buy very dearly. I am delighted to have had the right hon. Gentleman's revealing figures of these astonishing and scandalous increases or rent.
    The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) ejaculated

    1035
    "Nationalise the land" while the Secretary of State was speaking. The right hon. Gentleman gave no reply, but I remember very well a Private Member's Motion which he introduced about 1938 on the question of the nationalisation of the land. He made it clear then, when he had not the responsibilities which he possesses to-day, that he would never be a party to anything in the nature of unfair appropriation of land without due compensation to the owners. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman to-day, with his added responsibilities, will be as firm as he was in his speech on the Private Member's Motion with regard to this question. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there had been an absence of Parliamentary Questions from those representing agricultural constituencies in Scotland. The hon. Member for West Perth took him up and said that that did not mean we were all pleased and that everything in the garden was lovely, but rather that those representing agricultural constituencies had that common sense and sense of responsibility with regard to Questions which Mr. Speaker mentioned at the end of Question Time to-day.
    The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for West Perth spoke about the hill sheep industry. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed for details about how the Forestry Commissioners had reacted to the Governmental policy of putting sheep on lands which, for many years, were cleared. The right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to give details with regard to his experiences with the Forestry Commission, but he gave revealing figures about what has been done with some of the deer forests, about which, no doubt, the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) will say something when he addresses the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's figures suggested that the restocking of the deer forests had been a great success, and I hope that it has been. I am whole-heartedly in support of his policy there. He did not tell us how many ewes the Government had put on to some of these large areas and how many were there now. If the Under-Secretary could give us a little information on the matter it would be interesting. The hon. Member for West Perth stressed the necessity of the House discussing the Balfour of Burleigh Report and I think it is desirable that we
    1036
    should do so if possible before the Summer Adjournment. I am not very hopeful, but you have to ask for things in this House ad nauseam, and make up your mind that if you do not get them, it will not be for want of trying.
    I was talking yesterday with two big hill sheep farmers. One of them, a lady friend of mine, farms 12,000 acres of hill land and she told me that without the subsidy—which she does not like—she could not make ends meet. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that in the South of Scotland, with its sturdy sense of independence and the blood of the Covenanters, subsidies are not palatable means of making ends meet.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Hear, hear.
    Mr. McKie: I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs in that sentiment.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does the hon. Member agree with his lady friend that carrying on is much more important, than maintaining the spirit of Scottish independence?
    Mr. McKie: I am afraid I have not time to develop that point now. The other hill-sheep farmer, who is also in a big way, re-echoed the sentiments that the lady had expressed. He went further, and said that if things went on as they were going he thought that he and his fellow hill-sheep farmers would shortly be in a position of having to come to the Government and ask to be placed as salaried managers on the land they occupied. The sheep farming lands vary very much in quality, and I would ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, who has a great knowledge of Scotland and has been through most of the hills and glens of the Southern Uplands, if he does not realise the differences in quality between, say, the sheep lands of Roxburgh and Selkirk and those in Galloway. The men from the Border country will not look at them. Let us not forget that the costs of production are the same for all, whatever the quality of the land. That is why I hope the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him in the Scottish Department of Agriculture will realise how hard it is upon hill-sheep farmers on the poorer quality of hill farms.
    The hon. Member for West Perth stressed the unsatisfactory level of beef

    1037
    prices. I ventured to interrupt him regarding a statement made to me by a big beef producer at Castle Douglas with regard to the present rate of financial assistance to cows on upland pastures. The hon. Gentleman did not agree that the case was quite so bad on that one point, but, speaking generally, he is in complete agreement with me as to the serious position in which beef producers find themselves. I do not know whether I can go all the way with the hon. Gentleman with regard to what he said about the beef producer in the years after the war. We have switched over, as the hon. Member himself said, to dairy production and are producing milk in quantities greater than ever before. I do not imagine for one moment that the hon. Member would suggest that we should switch back again in a few years' time.
    Mr. Snadden: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that if we go over completely to milk production in a beef-producing country like Scotland, we shall have everybody producing milk. We must have balance, so that we do not get a movement which causes adversity.
    Mr. McKie: I am delighted to hear the hon. Member say that. I never intended to suggest that I was entirely for milk production at the expense of the producer of beef. Very far from it; but as I listened to the hon. Member I thought he was suggesting an unbalanced policy in the years to come—that he was rather suggesting that we should suddenly go in for decreasing our milk production. Surely he will agree with me that what we have to urge the Government to do in the post-war period—which we hope will not be very far away—is to consider the necessity of adjusting the balance and of giving, by way of an assured market to the beef producers, an incentive to provide the quality finished article which he said so much about. I hope the hon. Gentleman is in complete agreement with me on that, and I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman, and those associated with him, will take note of what has been said on this very difficult and thorny question. It is a matter which is greatly exercising the minds of many of those in Scotland who in the past have gone over entirely to the livestock side of the farming industry. Those are the two points in the Scottish agricultural industry—the hill sheep industry and the
    1038
    beef-production side of farming—which are giving many of those in the industry very serious cause, indeed, for thought and anxiety.
    With regard to dairying, I have no strictures whatever to pass on the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry, but I would like to say, with regard to Scottish farming as a whole—and it is germane to what the right hon. Gentleman himself said about the absence of criticism from agricultural Members in the last few months—that farmers are seriously disturbed with regard to prices. Let me put it this way. We know the storm which the Minister of Agriculture had to encounter in January from Members representing English rural constituencies because they thought that the Government s intentions with regard to keeping the rate of prices commensurate with the rate of costs had not been fulfilled. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a very heavy increase in Scotland recently in the cost of production, as far as wages are concerned. We were all delighted to have higher wages and I have always stood, as has also the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, for high wages. I stand for them to-day, and shall continue to stand for them, but I must point out that the Government have given no indication whatever that they are going to adjust prices in connection with the increase of wages.
    I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will be in a position to lift the curtain a little on this. I do not suppose for a moment that he will, but if he can, and does, I shall be delighted. I for one listened to the speech of the Secretary of State as a whole with very great interest and profit. I join with the hon. Member who urged that the earliest possible indication should be given of the Governmental long-term policy with regard to the farming industry, because there can be no doubt that there is an idea at the backs of the minds of farmers in Great Britain that their fate in the coming years will be the same as that which overtook their brethren in the years after the last war, when the Corn Production Act was dropped, and when, as we all know—whatever our fiscal or political views may be—the farming industry in this country reached a most deplorable position. As I have said, I

    1039
    have no hope that the Under-Secretary will be in a position to say much to-day, but I hope the Government are taking note of this matter and will shortly be in a position to allay our fears, and the anxieties of agriculturists generally, on this matter. I am delighted that we have a new recruit in the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who is doing such gallant work from the Labour Benches in stressing the necessity that agriculture must never again be allowed to lapse into the deplorable state which it occupied between the two wars and, as we are fortified with that very strong and unexpected support, I feel sure it will go a long way towards doing something with regard to this most serious and pressing matter.
    Sir Murdoch MacDonald: Probably no Debate in this Committee has so many facets as a Debate on agriculture. In the past three-quarters of an hour we heard discussed a dozen different phases of the subject. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) dwelt very largely on the future state of agriculture, a matter which concerns me very much too. The last speaker dwelt on several points, such as sheep and the possibility of nationalization——
    Mr. Gallacher: A good idea, and you will have to support that.
    Sir M. MacDonald: In nationalisation, there is a possible solution and one which has been indicated in the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England, who are, probably, the largest holders of agricultural land in the country. They set aside 16.1 per cent. of their rentals for maintenance of those things which a proprietor has to maintain in connection with farming. They set aside a further 16.3 per cent. for the purpose of improvement. In other words, they set aside something like 32.4 per cent. of the rentals for the purpose of putting it back into the farms by way of maintenance and improvement.
    Mr. Kirkwood: That is what they put back?
    Sir M. MacDonald: Yes, those are the figures of what they put back. In thinking over the matter, as far as Scotland was concerned, I came to the conclusion and recommended to my friends that if
    1040
    one-third of the rentals were hypothecated—not paid direct to the proprietors, but put into a separate account and spent on maintenance and improvement—there would be no necessity for the consideration of nationalisation.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Where is the rest of the 100 per cent.? The landlord does nothing with that.
    Sir M. MacDonald: The landlord gets 66⅔ after the 33⅓ is taken off. The amount which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners spend on their farms is 32.4 per cent., as I have already pointed out, and they, as proprietors, draw two-thirds. The bad landlord will have to spend that total sum of money, but the really good landlord who has kept his farm in first-class order—and there are good landlords as well as bad ones—will not require to do so. At the end of a lease, the money remaining in the hypothecated account can be refunded to the proprietor, as unspent money, to which he is entitled, because it was not spent on the farm. In the case of the bad proprietor, the whole 33⅓ per cent. will have been spent and, as a consequence, the farm will be kept in a first-class condition as are farms of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England. I have asked farmers, proprietors and others if a sum representing one-third of the total income was a reasonable figure, and I have been assured that it was an ample and fair figure to deduct and set aside. Therefore, if the Government wish to consider this matter and wish to avoid nationalisation, which has been recommended and which must come unless something of this kind is done, they must ensure that the bad proprietor properly maintains his farm. He is not necessarily bad in the normal sense of the word. In many cases the owner has not the money to spend and cannot afford the necessary maintenance.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Before the hon. Member leaves that point, I would like to point out that we are most anxious to relieve them of that burden.
    Sir M. MacDonald: It is only a burden on them up to one-third if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' figures are correct. Two-thirds of the rental remains free.
    Mr. McKie: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the Ecclesiastical

    1041
    Commissioners are model landlords? I have never heard that case put forward before.
    Sir M. MacDonald: They look after their farms remarkably well, up to the 32.4 per cent.
    Mr. McKie: I was thinking more of their slum property.
    Sir M. MacDonald: That is an entirely different problem. I was referring to their agricultural land and, if a scheme of that sort were adopted, it would solve the problem of nationalisation and solve it, I think, in a very reasonable way. Indeed, I have been advised by many people that it is a reasonable suggestion.
    Another matter to which reference has been made by previous speakers is hill sheep farming. Owing to circumstances over which I had no control I was prevented from hearing the speech of the Secretary of State. He referred to hill sheep being put upon land hitherto used as deer forests. Some time ago, I went to the trouble to estimate the position. It seemed to me that, judging from all the information I could find, there were nearly 3,500,000 acres in Scotland used for deer forests. Normally, but not invariably, there were no sheep on deer forests. A lot of people seem to think that sheep and deer do not get on well together, whereas it is well known that sheep and grouse do. The future estimates of what may be the extent of deer forest land are that it will be very much smaller. I estimate that it will be reduced to something like 1,500,000 acres; in other words, that 2,000,000 acres will have been set free for sheep, if necessary. Unfortunately, a great part of that land if not the whole of it will take a relatively small number of sheep.
    In the Lowlands, the fertile lowlands, we can say there will be one sheep to an acre, whereas 10 acres of hill land will be required. As a consequence, no great accretion in the number of sheep will take place. I might reasonably draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the normal hill sheep area, the sheep have decreased enormously during the last 60 to 80 years. Apparently there are not now more than 60 per cent. on that land, of the sheep that were there 60 or 70 years ago. If the returns for all Scotland are examined,
    1042
    it will be found that the number of sheep has increased. The whole area where the decrease has taken place is about half the country. The rest of Scotland therefore must have been increasing at a much greater rate than the figures actually show, while, in the Highlands, the decrease has been at a much greater rate than is evident from the total figures.
    The Hill Sheep Committee reported that something ought to be done to improve the quality of the pastures. There is a possibility of greatly improving them. Certain areas, relatively small, which will not amount to more than a few hundred acres, have been dealt with in respect of rough grasses and heather. They have been limed and possibly there has also been a slight addition of phosphates. When they have been so treated it is possible to keep far more sheep on them than before. One sheep owner told me that he dealt with 400 acres of that class of land; that he had scarified it or ploughed it, limed it and had added a little chemical manure, and that he was able now to keep three sheep where only one sheep was kept before. That might be a very fortunate case, but I do not think there is any reasonable doubt that the number of sheep in the Highlands could be doubled if the Government took the necessary steps to see that the work recommended by the Hill Sheep Committee was carried out.
    It has been suggested that we ought to keep pressing for a Debate on the Hill Sheep Committee's Report. I hope that a Debate will take place and that I shall have the privilege of being called upon to speak upon the matter. Therefore, I will not deal with this subject any further, in view of the possibility of a Debate at an early date, but I will turn to a major point, touched on by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, namely, the future of farming. My hon. Friend referred to the holders, but he did not specify exactly what he meant by holders. I have in my constituency, as everybody knows, a great number of people called crofters, who are very small holders.
    Mr. Kirkwood: In Inverness-shire?
    Sir M. MacDonald: Yes. There are two classes. The crofters, and the holders or smallholders, must be dealt with in the same way by the Government in the

    1043
    immediate future, as my hon. Friend has suggested. But there is the other class, who keep the great farming area of the country from 50 to a maximum of about 1,000 acres in Scotland. They were referred to by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), who spoke of the possibility of those people being put into a very bad position owing to wages being what is considered high at the present time. I do not think the wages are high in relation to the wages of other classes of the community. The agricultural worker is only now, for the first time as far as I know, being put into his proper position in relation to the rest of the community in so far as wages are concerned. I expect that the present high rate of wages may not continue——
    Mr. Kirkwood: They may be a lot higher.
    Sir M. MacDonald: Well, if so, then the value of money comes down. It may be that, in relation to the present value of money, the scale may be lower. I do not want to see the agricultural worker once again come down to the condition in which he formerly was. How is that to be avoided? It is obvious that the normal arable farmer of 50 acres and upwards is under two disabilities. The first is the compulsion to pay a standard rate of wages, and the second is the necessity of continuing to keep in cultivation the area that he has now in cultivation. If they have to do those two things, and if values drop and if, after the war and the interregnum period are over, subsidies vanish—I can well understand that subsidies must continue during the transition period—farmers will again be placed in a very parlous position. Cultivation in this country may go back as it did many years ago, indeed, since the last war, and farmers will find themselves in a very serious predicament. It is obvious that, in those circumstances, the Government must find other methods of increasing the money available to farmers for paying the rates of wages necessary to employ the requisite number of men to keep the present total of agricultural land under proper rotation.
    In my view, the only way in which the Government can do that, is to arrange that, if farmers cultivate their land normally and properly, as inspectors of agriculture decide, and if they do not
    1044
    earn £3 an acre, the Government, instead of giving a general subsidy, will make up the difference between what they actually earn and £3. I am advised that, even in normal circumstances and in the bad times that occurred in the years between the wars, many farmers were able to carry on well. In other words, they were able to make some figure comparable with £3 an acre, and to subsist fairly well on it. There is no reason to expect that they will not be able to do the same thing in the future. That applies to the vast number of farmers on good land who will be able to continue to earn a living as they did in the past.
    There will be a different situation for farmers on moderate or poorer land. There is a vast area of that class of land in Scotland, unfortunately, and in order to keep it under cultivation we shall have to say to the farmers that if they do not earn £3 per acre, after all their expenses are paid, the Government will find the balance. The National Farmers' Union wrote to me and said that this was bringing into the picture a new kind of inquisition into what the farmer is doing. I pointed out that that was not the case because at the present time the Inland Revenue authorities say to everybody who pays £100 rental and over, "You must produce your books so that we are satisfied as to what you are earning." But in the case of those who pay £100 of rental and under they say, "We charge you on three times the rental. We assume you earn three times the rental. If you object to that assumption produce your books and show that what you say is so."
    What I am suggesting would form no new inquisition into what farmers are doing. It would be a simple clear matter, depending on what the Inland Revenue return showed, as to what amount they would get. But it would have a wonderful effect. I am informed by inspectors of agriculture that they would then be able to devote the whole of their time, or nearly the whole of it, to attending to farmers who were not earning that figure, that is, £3 an acre, and helping to lift them up to the stage at which they will be no burden to the State. There is the possibility, under a system of this kind, of an immense improvement in the agricultural value of the present low types of land, either moderate or marginal land, as it is normally called. If some system

    1045
    of this kind were carried out, it would be, from the Government's point of view, I am told, a great saving in money compared with the present expenditure. I can freely say that I have had a farmer come to me and say in private conversation, "I am ashamed of the money I have been getting." [Interruption.] He had been getting so much. He was on good land. In consequence he said he was ashamed of the money he was getting.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I suppose he took it.
    Sir M. MacDonald: The Minister of Agriculture, on a recent occasion, stated that he was aware of a great number of farmers who are doing extremely well under the present circumstances. Is there any reason why anybody should do extremely well out of the Government at the present time? Certainly people have to be carried, if they are unable to cope with their land, but there is no reason to pay them further sums beyond that. The people who require the help are the people on moderate and poor land, not necessarily the people on good land, and when one refers to good land that does not mean the size of the land. A man may have 600 acres and have a first-class farm and another man may have 60 acres of first-class land and have a first-class farm too. But two other men may have 600 acres of moderate or poor land and 60 acres of moderate or poor land respectively. The cost of cultivation in the cases I have given—sowing, reaping, and the other things required to produce a crop—is practically identical for each. Yet the Government give a larger figure to the man on good land because he gets more money per bushel or quarter on produce he takes out of the land.
    I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland should consider very seriously some alteration in substitution for the subsidies which on all sides, it is agreed, will eventually drop. At the same time everybody is desperately keen that the agricultural workers' wages should be maintained at the level at which they are, and that the whole of the agricultural land of the country should be maintained in cultivation. My hon. Friend wanted still more cultivation if that were possible. I agree with him that wherever it is possible, we should cultivate still more, just as in the case of the hill sheep industry we should lime the land, and cut out the rough grass, in order to feed more
    1046
    sheep than we do now. If these things were done, the position of agriculture in Scotland would be very different for a future Minister, from what is the case today.
    Lord Dunglass: Hon. Members have properly used this occasion, which comes once a year, of raising agricultural matters of particular interest to us in Scotland. Indeed the Secretary of State took that line and avoided the more general case of the long-term agricultural, policy. He was right to do so, and I would make only one or two comments on his few remarks on that subject. I do not know if he noted, as I did, the other day—I hope he did—some remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debate on employment, in which he said:
    "Of course we want to develop our agriculture. We have got to, because of our exchange conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1914, Vol. 401, c. 407].
    That, I think, is true, and I hope the Secretary of State has cut that out, as I have done, for use on a future occasion, because it is not always that that kind of remark, of solicitude for agriculture, comes from the mouth of the Treasury.
    All I would say on that point is that these long-term plans for agriculture will need decisions and agreements on a world level and an Empire level, and also on the level of this country. They will be a most complicated affair, and I hope that the Secretary of State, if he takes part in those negotiations, will do so on the basis that any plans into which we enter should secure, for this country at least, a level of output well in advance of anything we had between the wars, and that meanwhile, until we get absolutely working agreements, we should retain in our own hands the power to protect our own home producers, should the need arise. Pending world agreement, that seems to me to be absolutely essential.
    I come to some of the particular matters which I should like to put to the Joint Under-Secretary. I take up the matter raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), the question of the marketing of strawberries and raspberries—perhaps a tactless thing to do in the South these days. It seems to me that the Scottish producer of strawberries is, put at a disadvantage compared with his competitors in England. It is possible for the producer in England, in the last

    1047
    weeks in May, or the early weeks in June, to get a good price for his table strawberries over a number of weeks. This can only be done by the Scottish grower for a minimum percentage of his crop, and by far the largest proportion of his crop has to be sold at prices which are fixed for the glut period of the English market. It is too late this season to help our producers in Scotland, and I do not quite know what is the machinery by which prices are fixed, but I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary if, next season, during the negotiations he would take particular notice of this question. It would be of the greatest help to our Scottish producers, if they could get better prices for a number of weeks. It is possible, I think, under regional price agreements. In the case of raspberries the difference in price is not as between England and Scotland, but between two regions in Scotland. The price is being fixed at something like 81s. per cwt. for the Angus area, while the prices in Lanarkshire are only some 72s. per cwt.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I hope the Noble Lord will not pursue this particular point too far, as the question of prices comes under another Ministry.
    Lord Dunglass: That is the information I am trying to extract from the Minister. This is a difference between two regions in Scotland, not between England and Scotland. There is no justification for it as far as I can see. Costs of production in Lanarkshire are just as high as in Angus, and the quality is just as good.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is it not a fact that in fixing prices of this kind the Minister of Food must have regard to advice received from the Department of Agriculture in Scotland? They must to some extent advise the Minister. Surely it would be in Order to discuss that?
    The Temporary Chairman: That may be so. Actually the fixing of prices is done, I am advised, by the Minister of Food, and while I did not want to stop the Noble Lord, I had to indicate that it would be unwise to carry the matter too far in case he went over the line into another Estimate and on to another Vote.
    Lord Dunglass: I quite see your point, Mr. Hall, and the hon. Member for Gor-
    1048
    bals (Mr. Buchanan) has expressed the point I was trying to make, that the Department comes into the negotiations. If my hon. Friend wants to be convinced about the quality of Lanarkshire raspberries and if he will meet me in a week or two, I think I can satisfy him.
    Mr. Buchanan: I shall be there first.
    Lord Dunglass: If my hon. Friend will treat this as a matter of urgency and can alter it for this season's crop, we shall be most grateful.
    There are two questions I should like to ask about a considerable wastage in agriculture at the moment. Can my hon. Friend give us any information about the incidence of mastitis? I understand this is a matter of great concern to dairy farmers, and that losses from the incidence of this disease amount to some millions of pounds a year. It is a most stubborn problem, and if he could give any information as to whether it is yielding to research it would be of interest to the dairy farmers. Another matter of wastage which, from my personal observation, is appalling is the damage done by rats. The Department of Agriculture institute "rat weeks." They have professional rat-catchers, who have done a great deal of good. I have myself seen thousands of rats killed by these professional killers, but there is wilful negligence on the part of farmers at the present time. If only they would take the simplest steps, it would be possible to reduce a great deal further the damage done by rats.
    I believe it is obligatory—perhaps the Under-Secretary could tell me—for a farmer to surround his stacks with wire netting, when threshing. I can tell him that a great percentage of farmers do not do so. I saw a farm last year on which were about a dozen stacks. The farmer put netting round and some 460 rats were killed. At a neighbouring farm, the farmer did not put any netting round his stacks, and the rats streamed out all over the countryside. There are powers of prosecution, and I would say to the Under-Secretary, without any wish to be vindictive against farmers, that this is a case in which prosecution should be used. Farmers who do not take the simplest method to try to cure what is becoming a plague of rats deserve to be prosecuted.
    There is one more question. Could the Under-Secretary tell us anything about the

    1049
    Scottish Gardens and Allotments Association? The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised the question of allotments. I think there has been probably no more valuable development in the war years than that of the allotments. The growing of fresh vegetables has meant everything to families, particularly to children, and it is something that we can well develop even more in peace-time. The great variety of topics which has been raised today illustrates the great variety of problems in Scottish agriculture. It is true that the efficiency and the prosperity of Scottish agriculture will depend on the long-term plan that must be produced, but, within our own country, we can at least hope to be efficient.
    Mr. Sloan: If I had not heard the word "agriculture" used so often during this Debate, I might have made the mistake of thinking that the Committee were discussing the coal industry. It is perhaps not peculiar that the difficulties facing the coal industry are those which face agriculture. The Secretary of State gave figures of the last census, showing that there were some 176,000 people engaged in agriculture and 132,000 engaged on coal. I represent a division which is fairly equally divided as between coal and agriculture, and I have always found that when the one industry was depressed, so was the other; when miners were having a hard time, their agricultural brethren were going through it to the same extent. It is obvious that, unless we can place these national industries on a fair and equitable basis, whereby we can have sufficient production and secure a price for it which will give equal treatment to all people, we shall have these recurrent periods of depression. As with coal, it is impossible to plan agriculture, I think, without the land belonging to the people. As long as it is in the rapacious hands of landlords, to exploit the farmers and to add to the rent because of improvements that have been effected by the holders, so long will agriculture in Scotland remain in a bad state. That is fundamental, and I do not think there is any argument about it. It is unreal, and in many ways fantastic, that we are discussing something that does not belong to us, discussing an industry that is outside the scope even of the House of Commons. I have listened with varying degrees of interest to agricultural
    1050
    Debates in this House during the six years or so in which I have been a Member, and I have always experienced a certain amount of frustration at the end of them, because of the nebulous state in which they have been left.
    In the realms of agriculture, Scotland and England are two separate and distinct nations. I use the word "nations" advisedly. In Scotland, agriculture should be our basic industry. England, carrying a population of 40,000,000 or so, cannot look upon agriculture as a basic industry. She is a manufacturing country, with teeming factories, and with her workers largely engaged in that type of industry. In Scotland we have some 4,250,000, I think—I am never sure of the figures far Scotland—and two-thirds of them are huddled together in towns and cities, with much of the open spaces of Scotland, which should be based fundamentally on agriculture, going to waste. The Secretary of State made the point that Scotland was an exporter of food. I think it was the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) who interjected that we export our food, and eat spam. That has been the position because of our economy. We have exported the best prime products that can be produced. We export beef, and, in ordinary times, import meat from the Argentine. Capital is exported from Scotland to develop the meat trade of the Argentine, while our own agriculture is neglected. We have heard a great deal about sheep to-day, but I think I can say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that the frozen meat shop is a prominent feature in the shopping centre of any of our towns. We must export our mutton, and import frozen meat. Somebody said the other day that we exported the best of food, and imported dehydrated frogs for the people of Scotland to eat. Where do the Scottish eggs go?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): Did my hon. Friend say "frogs"?
    Mr. Sloan: Yes, dehydrated frogs. I will not give my authority for it.
    Mr. Buchanan: Do not annoy the Front Bench, whatever you do.
    Mr. Chapman: I thought my hon. Friend said "dehydrated bugs."
    Mr. Sloan: We might as well have dehydrated bugs as dehydrated eggs from China. That is the position in Scotland—there appears to be sufficient room for the development of agriculture in our country if we utilise our own products. There has been a mass of contradictory statements to-day. We have a statement from Denmark that the food position in Denmark is relatively high. Scotland should be as efficient an agricultural country as Denmark. The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) will not deny that.
    Mr. Snadden: I think Scotland is just as efficient as Denmark.
    Mr. Sloan: I am glad to hear the hon. Member say so. If so, why have we, in ordinary times, to buy Danish butter in Scotland?
    Mr. Snadden: Because of the lower cost of production.
    Mr. Sloan: So we eat margarine instead of butter. In any shopping centre, in any city in this country, in ordinary times, we find Danish products being sold. We attempted, by preferences, to boost Imperial produce, but, even with all the assistance we could give, Denmark seemed to hold the field. That requires some explanation. I have never heard why Denmark could do that in the field of dairy produce. I do not think it ought to be so. If we turned our attention to utilising the facilities at our disposal, and making more use of the agricultural colleges and other methods of training, we should produce just as good a manufactured product on the farms as we can in the engineering shops of the Clyde and elsewhere. We have to turn our attention to that aspect.
    I was on a farm yesterday. It was a fairly long distance from the road. The road from the farm was in a deplorable condition. The county council cannot accept any responsibility, because the road is not a main road. Is there nothing which can be done to assist farmers who are at a fair distance from the road to maintain roadways from their farms? I was interested, in reading the report of Wimpey's, to see that the chairman of the company said that during the past year his firm had laid down more concrete than would build a road across Europe, to the foot of the Ural Mountains. If we can lay
    1052
    down sufficient concrete to build a road across Europe, why is it that, among their many other difficulties, the agricultural community are given no assistance in maintaining the roads up to their farms? We had a Bill the other day to assist the farmers to obtain water supplies. Decent roads are just as necessary as water supplies.
    I think there are some things which ought to be done in regard to agriculture in Scotland. I have indicated the first—that the land itself should become the property of the people. We can never make perfect use of it unless that is done. We shall require to organise home production, with a fair price for the produce, and make it available to all. We must correlate this discussion to-day with the recent discussion on the White Paper on employment, when the whole tone of the Debate centred on the question of exports. Exports of what? Exports of manufactured products of this country. But we cannot export without importing. In exchange for the goods we send abroad, we must find something to bring in to the country. I would like to know if it is the intention again to enter into competition for markets, to sell cheap manufactured goods and, in return, bring in cheap food. If we are to have a system of cheap food again, how will it be possible to maintain prices to the farmers that will allow them to produce their supplies and, at the same time, pay adequate wages to the workers in their employment?
    I think it will be agreed that the agricultural labourer in this country has always had a poor show. He is having it to-day. The wages of the agricultural worker have not gone up in accordance with the wages of those engaged in other types of industry in this country. There are people who are working in agriculture—not agricultural workers, but casual workers brought in because of the demand that the job must be done in a certain time—who are earning fairly large wages, but the agricultural worker, who has been on the job always and is bound to the land under the Essential Work Order, and is under the control of his employer, has not had a fair show, even during this war. I would like to know if these wages boards are to continue, and if there is to be some attempt made to correlate agricultural workers' wages with the wages of those engaged in any other in-

    1053
    dustry in this country. Unless we are prepared to do that, it is perfectly evident that, when the time comes when agricultural workers can be released from the industry, they will seek work elsewhere, and there will be nobody to prevent them doing that, unless the farming community and the country are going to face up to their responsibilities and see that the agricultural worker gets a fair show.
    There is no more highly-skilled worker in this country than the agricultural worker. If you start your boy as an apprentice in engineering, at the end of that time he is an engineer. Send your boy to agriculture, and before he becomes an expert in agriculture he has a dozen complete trades to learn, any of them requiring as much skill as that of the best engineer in the country. We ought to have that type of man, because, ultimately, ately, agriculture depends on that type of man and on the people who are going to do the job. The Government have sent all kinds of people to the farms. They have sent school-children to the farms, and I am surprised at the optimism of the Secretary of State regarding this matter. The practical farmer says that schoolchildren, except for lifting a few potatoes, are no use to him. You send schoolchildren to the harvest field to do a man's job, but there are nothing else but men's jobs in a harvest field. The idea that we can harvest our crops by school-children is the sheerest nonsense. Land girls—some of them—have done an excellent job, but many of them have not, and many never will. They have neither the physical nor the mental capacity for the job. Italian prisoners have been sent to the farms, but many of them are no more fond of work than some of the land girls, and we have to depend upon the-agricultural worker, working all the time and overtime, in many cases, for the purpose of harvesting these crops so necessary at the present time.
    A great deal has been said to-day about a long-term policy and a post-war policy. I am not very much concerned about what is taking place during the war, because it is a period that will pass, but, if we are to pass from this period into a period such as we experienced after the last war, it will be a pity for the agriculture of our country. The agriculturalists did a good job during the last war, and received as much praise as they
    1054
    are receiving now. Speeches were made lauding them, but, at the end, what happened to them? They went back to the life of misery and starvation which had always been their lot. I hope that, as far as Scotland is concerned, we will be prepared to take a much longer and clearer view on this matter. The war-time industries are to pass to peace-time industries, and the war-time factories are to be transferred to peace-time activity. Therefore, we are not going to get anything in that direction. But there is one thing they cannot take, and that is the land. It is there, and it is up to the people of Scotland to develop it, so as to turn the country into a nation of agriculturists, which will be able to compete on the same basis as Denmark, and those other nations which have devoted themselves wholly to that type of economy.
    Major McCallum: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) made reference to agricultural labour, and I was glad that he recognised that an agricultural labourer is just as skilled as, if not far more skilled than, any other kind of labour in industry or any other calling. But I was sorry to hear him casting a certain reflection on the work done by a very splendid body of workers in agriculture—the Women's Land Army. I have from personal experience——
    Mr. Sloan: I did not intend to do so. What I intended to say was that many of them did excellent work, and I did not intend to cast any aspersions upon them.
    Major McCallum: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend correct that, because I certainly understood him rather to doubt the value of the work of the Women's Land Army, and I wanted to tell him that, near to my home, there are many farms on which land girls work, and the farmers find them very satisfactory and doing a very fine job of work.
    If I may, I would like to return to that hardy old chestnut, hill sheep farming, and I apologise to hon. Members if it is becoming a rather boring subject, but, after all, in the Highlands of Scotland it is our most important industry, and, as the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) said, in actual production it ranks third, though very nearly as high as the second—priority milk—in production, and is therefore a very important industry. I want to refer to that very

    1055
    interesting speech of the Secretary of State, because he made reference to particular places in my own constituency, and also mentioned the question of deer forests. I have a good deal of experience of deer forests in Scotland, not only in my own constituency but in a neighbouring county.
    I was very interested to hear my right hon. Friend mention Torosay in Mull. Here I would like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire on the nationalisation of land. I do not know what my hon. Friend's farmers think in Ayrshire, but I do know, having gone round the farmers of the Highlands, that I cannot find one who wants to continue even the small amount of nationalisation and bureaucracy that we are going through to-day. On account of the forms they have to fill in and the returns they have to make, and all that stuff- that farmers have never dealt with before, they want to see the end of it. Figures have been given, but nothing was said about the heavy losses on the Torosay deer forest when the experiment was started, and, again, nothing was said about the owners of that forest being unable to stock it with sheep and cattle.
    It may interest hon. Members to know that the owner of the forest is on service, that his wife is on service and that the children are on service. Actually, the owner is the wife, but the husband has had a most distinguished career in North Africa and has won many decorations, and is to-day, for all I know, in Normandy. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible for them to fulfil the demands of the local war agricultural executive committee to stock up their deer forest. They were quite prepared to do so, but where was the labour to come from? There is no extra labour to be had in Argyll. The Department of Agriculture could say to the Ministry of Labour, "We want agricultural workers for this place in Argyllshire" and ask the Ministry to produce them; while if the owner asked for the same labour the reply would be "There is no one to be had." Nothing has been said either, of the cost of the fencing put up on that forest, but I understand most lavish expenditure was incurred in putting up fences and buildings on the requisitioned part of the estate.
    Now, I turn from Torosay, which is run from the "nationalizing" point of
    1056
    view, to another estate also in Argyllshire, which is being run in one of the highest glens—Glen Lochy. There, a private enterprise concern has developed that glen within recent months out of all recognition. What has resulted at Torosay is child's play to what has been done in Glen Lochy. Only a few months ago, I myself used to drive backwards and forwards through that glen, when sheep were littered about the road because it was the only dry place for them. That glen to-day—it is a glen of about II miles long—has been drained by intensive draining, there are hundreds of cattle on the hillsides there now, and you do not see the sheep on the road any more. The sheep are grazing away on dry grazing. When they lie about, they lie on the hillside, and it has become a complete transformation. That has been done by private enterprise.
    Mrs. Hardie: Is there not a grant given for that purpose by the Government? I see there is a big sum put down for land drainage. Do not they get a share of that subsidy in order to enable them to drain this land?
    Major McCallum: Certainly, they benefit by the same grant which is general to everybody else, but they have not unlimited State funds at their disposal with which to carry out this work. I am not at all satisfied, and neither are my farming constituents, that nationalisation of the land would be a solution of the difficulties of hill sheep farming.
    I want to come back to a point which has been spoken of often before but which cannot ever be too much stressed, and that is, the appalling encroachment of bracken. I was walking over a farm near my home on Sunday when I was really appalled, at a time when we should be cutting bracken, at the amount of new bracken that has grown. Fifty per cent. of the grazing on that farm is now under bracken. We shall have to get down to the question of bracken, with a view to its eradication in some form or other. I know that the Under-Secretary will tell me that the Department has sent out so many bracken-cutting machines and that they are hired out by the agricultural executive committees. But there are not nearly enough of them. Those that we have are not nearly strong enough for the job. Admittedly we cannot expect anything better in war-time, but I hope that

    1057
    the committee or department, or whoever it is who is going into the research on the destruction of bracken, will bear in mind the necessity of bringing out a moderately priced and really strong bracken cutter, something which will stand up to the rough work it has to face on the hill side.
    I can assure him that if he or the Department or a leading motor firm, I do not care who it is, can produce a good, sound, strong type of bracken cutting machine which is motor driven, there will be an unlimited sale for it throughout Scotland. I hope the scientists dealing with the question of bracken will develop some fungus or other with which it may be possible to destroy the rhizomes themselves. You can cut the bracken off year after year, but you do nothing to destroy the rhizomes, which lie from 5 to 10 feet underground. This is becoming such a serious matter in the West Highlands and Islands that within a few years some farms will he entirely covered by bracken.
    I come to the question of fertilisers and the improvement of hill grazing by putting hill cattle on to the land. That has been developed to a very great extent in Argyllshire, and it is doing extremely well, and I hope that the scheme will be carried forward into the post-war years. It is a scheme which will take a long time to produce any real result, but it is producing something already and we want to see it brought much further forward. It is very seldom that I hear of the question of vermin destruction but the increase in the number of foxes on the hills and mountains and glens is unbelievable. In my own particular county one of the executive committees, if not both, has very good fox club schemes to which farmers subscribe so much per head of sheep in their flocks. It is not only in Argyllshire; neighbouring counties are simply swarming with foxes and we want every possible encouragement to deal with that matter.
    I now return to the old question of the West Highlands and Islands—transport problems and the tremendously high cost of freights, which adds to the cost of production. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be able to refer to the matter of transport, particularly of sea transport, in his reply, but I hope that his Department are really considering putting forward very strenuous appeals for amelioration regard-
    1058
    ing freight charges in Scotland. I know that my right hon. Friend is very keen on the matter and I hope that in postwar years we shall find some improvement.
    I want to refer to a small point, i.e., to the land which is left free by the Forestry Commission when they are planting up the areas they have taken over in Scotland, and in the Islands in particular. They plant between 200 and 700 feet levels, and in some counties they even go as high as 900 feet, but above that there is a large area, admittedly poor grazing, but it is grazing, which could be used by farmers on which to graze sheep in the summer time. The Forestry Commissioners' reply is that it is far too expensive and uneconomic to be able to fence all the new plantations to prevent them being damaged by sheep. I do not suggest that grazing adjoining new plantations should be fenced in that way, but I am prepared to say that in the Great Glen and other parts of the Highlands there are plantations containing trees already up to such a height that they can no longer be damaged by sheep.
    In a previous Debate I made a statement regarding the Forestry Commission for which I was taken to task, and on which I should like to make a short explanation. I had referred to the planting of trees in growing oats, which I had actually seen. One of the Forestry Commission afterwards asked me where this was and I pointed out the particular area. It appeared I was to a certain extent wrong in my statement, in that, in order to clean the ground for future operations, the Forestry Commission plant oats, and having got those oats standing, they do not bother to cut them, but plant the trees between them. That was what I had seen taking place with my own eyes, and I thought it was a very bad use of agricultural land. I am sorry if I was mistaken and made public a state of affairs which did not exist.
    There is one point on which nothing so far has been said by hon. Members regarding the hill sheep industry, and that is the price of wool. Wool is the only part of the hill sheep farmer's product on which the hill sheep farmer, the primary producer, gets a return. He sells his lambs to the middleman and they are taken away to the South to fatten and the middleman gets his guaranteed prices.

    1059
    The hill sheep farmer does not get any of that, but he gets a guaranteed price for wool. If it could be possible in any adjustment of prices in future to make certain that the farmer himself obtains direct benefit by getting a more economic price for wool, I feel sure it would go a long way towards doing away with subsidies and other funds which the Government at present have to pay out. Lastly, I want to mention a question which deals with education as well as agriculture. There are many places in the remoter parts of Argyllshire and in other parts of the Highlands where farm workers, and even farmers themselves, find extreme difficulty in getting their children educated. I have sent several cases to my right hon. Friend—he has very kindly taken them up with much vigour—where schools have closed down and left ploughmen, shepherds and other farm workers with no education facilities at all for their children.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We must leave the question of schools until the next Vote.
    Major McCallum: I apologise for going too far from agriculture, but I was trying to show that the contentment and well-being of our agricultural workers had a very serious bearing on the agricultural position. But having mentioned the matter I will leave it at that, and I only hope that what has been said to-day by hon. Members on all sides on the question et the hill sheep industry will have some el-feet and that we shall see to it that it never again sinks to the dreadful times experienced before the war, and may perhaps show prosperity commensurate with other branches of farming in Scotland.
    Mr. Boothby: I was very glad that the hon. and gallant Member dealt exhaustively with the question of hill sheep. He is right when he says that it is a burning question as far as Scottish agriculture is concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this question when he comes to reply. I was particularly interested in what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the price of wool. I am not quite clear——
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am interested in the price of wool as a sort of side-line
    1060
    in agriculture, but the hon. Member is getting very near to another Ministry and ought not to go into the matter too deeply.
    Mr. Boothby: I agree, Mr. Williams. I believe that it is sold by one Department to another, and so naturally some confusion arises. I suggest that it might be sold at a higher price, for the benefit of Scottish farmers. That is the only point I wish to make.
    I wish that a lot of the people who are getting increasingly hysterical about our export trade after the war, particularly the economists, had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. It was a most remarkable speech. I go as far as to say that it was a sensational speech. It claims equality of interest at least with the Doodle-bug and Normandy to-morrow in the national Press; and I hope that it will receive it. It is a remarkable fact that not only is Scotland producing all the foodstuffs she requires, but a surplus as well, despite the fact that a great deal of her land has been taken over for military purposes.
    Captain De Chair: Does my hon. Friend include tea?
    Mr. Boothby: No, I do not include tea. We have in Scotland a very good substitute for tea. It is also yellow but it is cold. It is all right. A very great contemporary statesman once observed to me, "I like my tea cold and yellow," and I rather agree; at any rate I strongly recommend it to my hon. Friend. But honestly, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is worthy of a special telegram to Lord Keynes in the United States of America, before British agriculture is sold down the river to the international financiers for the second time in a generation. That we do want to avoid, if we can. It is a great achievement, and the fact that the Scottish agricultural achievement is generally admitted to be considerably larger, if not better, than the English achievement, on a proportional basis, will give great satisfaction to Scotsmen.
    I think our agricultural achievement in this war has been really grand. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the "just price." That is a medieval conception; but in medieval times the English countryside was very

    1061
    prosperous, and the people were well fed, more so than they were during the greater part of the 19th and 10th centuries. There is a great deal to be said for the just price for agriculturists; and it is one of those things we might well recapture from the past, and make a permanent feature of our national life.
    The right hon. Gentleman had some very strong things to say about land speculation. I think we might legitimately say that is a matter for the Government to deal with. If the Secretary of State feels that land speculation is developing on an undesirable scale, he has only to come to the House for powers to deal with it, and I am sure he will get them. But what he said happened immediately after the last war is absolutely true. One remembers how inflated all values became in 1921; how some farmers bought at these inflated values, and others sold. The unfortunate men who bought, and probably took out mortgages, very soon found themselves in a position where they could not possibly discharge their obligations; for, I would remind Members of this Committee, if you take a debt incurred in 1921 as equivalent to 100 sacks of corn, it took 200 sacks of corn to discharge that debt in 1925, after we went back to the Gold Standard. We do not want that to happen to British agriculture again, because I believe it was the root cause of a very great deal of the trouble.
    My right hon. Friend referred to the Land Court, and to the valuable work it is doing under Lord Gibson's chairmanship. I think that is true. My right hon. Friend thought that its activities might be extended, and the Committee may well wish that would come about. My right hon. Friend might give a hint to some of the Government Departments in this connection; because I understand that while some are willing to accept the verdict of the Land Court, others prefer to make their own calculations when questions of Government purchases of land are concerned. If the Land Court is of great value, the Government Departments ought to set an example to the rest of the community, and go to the Land Court when they want a fair valuation. My hon. Friend knows there is one particular Department that has a strong objection to the Land Court, and prefers to work it all out itself. I think the Secretary of State
    1062
    should be in a strong position to make forcible representations to other Government Departments that they at least should accept the judgment and the verdict of the Land Court.
    I think that the figures given by the Secretary of State with regard to the increase of allotments were very satisfactory and encouraging; but we must not forget that the foundation of Scottish agriculture is to-day, and always has been, amble stock farming. Therefore, I was very glad to hear once again from a Government spokesman of the increasing emphasis the Government are putting on livestock at the present time; because it is the bullock on which any sane agricultural policy in the future has to hinge. I was also glad that the importance of improving quality, so far as livestock is concerned, is becoming increasingly appreciated by the Government. This point was dealt with quite adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), and I do not need to emphasise his argument. The Secretary of State pointed out that there has been an increase in the amount of high quality cattle produced in Scotland. I hope it will go on; and I venture to suggest it will go on, if the improvement of quality is recognised in the prices that are to be paid in future. I think we may reasonably expect that that will take place.
    I believe that mixed rotational farming is now the accepted answer to the fundamental problem of British agric Inure. It has even been accepted as such by the Hot Springs Conference. But if our Scottish agriculture is to thrive, if it is to expand in the future as well as it has done in the past three years, it must also be well balanced. I think the hon. Member for West Perth was trying to make that point, as between beef and milk production. Before the war there was a tendency for our livestock policy to become unbalanced in favour of milk, as against meat. Precisely the same argument applies so far as cereal policy is concerned. I want to emphasise the necessity for a comprehensive long-term policy covering all white cereal crops—wheat and oats and barley—for ibis country, and not one directed solely to the production of wheat. I repeat again quite unrepentantly—although my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) does

    1063
    not entirely agree with me on this—that if we ever try to base British agriculture again on wheat and sugar, we are bound to come to grief. We shall get in exactly the same sort of mess as we were when we were forced to repeal the Corn Production Act in 1920, which did unlimited, almost permanent, damage to British agriculture as a whole. The proper place to grow sugar is the West Indies—a little, if you like, in East Anglia, but the West Indies is the place—and wheat in large quantities in Canada and Australia and South America. Our cereal policy after the war must be a balanced policy, covering all the white crops, including oats—which we are pre-eminently fitted to produce in Scotland—and barley and wheat, on equal terms.
    I hope we shall also aim, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, at a greatly increased production, for home consumption, of many other things besides beef and mutton and cereals—of milk, of poultry, of pigs, of vegetables, and of fruit. All these are protective foods of the highest nutritional value, and this country is pre-eminently fitted to produce them; but let us produce and grow them in the parts of the country which are best suited to do it. It is no good going in for intensive beef production in Ayrshire, or milk production in Aberdeenshire. What I mean by a well-balanced system of agriculture, when the emergency is over—and it is gradually becoming less tense at the moment—is that we should concentrate the production of these very different articles of food in those parts of the country, which vary greatly even in Scotland, where they can best be produced. Then we shall get what I call a well-balanced system of agriculture.
    I now want to raise one point particularly with my hon. Friend, and that is the question of potatoes. I have already written to the Minister of Food on the subject This again, Mr. Williams, is rather a: difficult point, because potatoes are technically bought by the Ministry of Food; but they are grown under the direction of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I will try to deal with this problem mainly on the growing side, and I will not criticise the Ministry of Food. The fact remains that the Department of Agriculture laid down certain acreage quotas for the production of potatoes.
    1064
    They are not, in the North of Scotland at any rate, a very popular crop. They we're grown rather reluctantly by the farmers under specific instructions from the agricultural executive committees. Authorised merchants for some months gave repeated assurances—most of them oral, but in some cases on paper—that these potatoes would be cleared. I could quote case after case but, at any rate, at the present moment in the North-East of Scotland there is a very large amount of potatoes left in the fields, and going bad. This should not be the case, in the fifth year of war. I want to submit that very strongly to the Committee. At the end of May, the authorised merchants, who had kept the farmers "sweet" all the way through by promising them on numerous occasions that they would clear their stocks of potatoes, suddenly turned round and said they could not accept them.
    I will give the Committee one example on that point. The agricultural executive committee for the Turriff district in my constituency made an urgent inquiry regarding the potato situation in that district in mid-June—just about a fortnight or three weeks ago. They found that 275 farmers had 2,162 tons of last year's potatoes still on their hands, and going bad. It is a sad fact that I am always having to complain of something going bad. Last year it was herrings; the year before that it was oats; and this year, unhappily, it is potatoes. But we got the oat and herring situations cleared up; and I am hopeful that we shall now get the potato situation cleared up. I want to suggest to the Committee that it really will not do. Since the end of May what has happened? The Government say they will take truckloads of not less than five tons. Where does the small man come in on that? The Ministry of Food say that their guarantee of purchase ended on 31st May; but it was my hon. Friend who told the farmers to grow all these potatoes, and I ask, Why should the farmers pay the premium for national insurance against starvation in case things go wrong? It is not the farmers who should pay for these potatoes; it is the Government who, having ordered the farmers to grow the potatoes against their will, and being unable to deal with them when they are grown, are responsible.
    I want to suggest two remedies. First of all, compensation should be paid to the

    1065
    farmers for any potatoes which, through no fault of their own, have not been cleared and have gone bad. Secondly, in the future, I think the Government should say that a proportion of all potatoes, grown in Scotland at any rate, should be taken in the autumn, so that we are not left with a glut of potatoes in one particular district.
    Sir Ernest Shepperson: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but is it not a fact that during this spring, in Scotland as well as in England, the Ministry of Food Potato Section undertook to contract for all the potatoes left on a farmer's hands?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think this is just exactly where I have to say something. It is quite obvious that if the Government Department pays a subsidy for potatoes under the Ministry of Agriculture and, at some later point, these potatoes are taken on by the Ministry of Food, it would be possible to rule that at that point this no longer comes in under this Estimate. However, if I did that, it would mean that the hon. Member would not get a satisfactory solution to this matter. Therefore, I think it is fair that the hon. Member should put this question of potatoes and that the Govern ment—as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has put it—should be equally free to answer as to how this matter has been so well or so otherwise dealt with by the Department concerned.
    Mr. Boothby: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Williams; and I do not intend to pursue the subject any further. The fact is that my hon. Friend ordered these potatoes to be grown, and his colleague would not then take them, so it is really a fight between them; but I want the Scottish Office to fight and win; and anything we can say to support them in this Committee will be said. What has been clone to the North-East farmers, so far as these potatoes are concerned, is really too bad. I am therefore glad that you have given me this opportunity for raising the matter in this Debate. If my hon. Friend passes the baby to the Ministry of Food, it will not be the first time that the Department has had to carry a squalling baby; and I dare say it will manage to dump it somewhere.
    There is to-day a world food shortage, as has been generally admitted; and the
    1066
    Minister of Agriculture in a very interesting and impressive speech in the country recently said that we in this country had to play a great part in meeting it. But I think the farmers are entitled to say, "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job." There is a very important aspect which has not been dealt with in the Debate. The labour situation is serious. There is in fact an acute shortage. I am not arguing that it can be avoided at the moment; but it must be recognised by the Government that the claims of agriculture, when it comes to any question of demobilisation, must have a very high priority; particularly in view of the position which will confront us in Europe and, indeed, in the world so far as the shortage of food is concerned. Even at the moment there are a number of petty irritants which could be put right, I do not feel I ought to be bothering my hon. Friend, as I have been bothering him in recent weeks, about such things as the shortage of blacksmiths in rural districts, and tyres for tractors, upon which he will recollect we have had a prolonged correspondence. What is the number of tyres involved? A dozen or so. Tractors are obviously of vital importance. Why does not the Minister insist on getting the tyres, and have done with-it, without Members of Parliament being written to about two tyres for a back pair of wheels or a front pair of wheels of a tractor which is obviously doing work of vital national importance? It is these pretty irritants of which I complain, because they have no relation to the real war effort at all. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also mentioned, the housing position in the rural districts of Scotland, although less spectacular than in the urban districts, is just as grave, and should certainly receive just as high a priority when the moment comes for us to turn our attention to it.
    I would like to conclude by saying one word upon a subject which I know the Secretary of State has always had at heart, and that is the subject of nutrition, which he referred to in his speech opening this Debate. I remember that, many years ago, he and I participated in a campaign for a greater consumption of fresh milk. That campaign culminated in the milk in schools scheme, and the national milk scheme; and I do not think anybody will deny the value of those two schemes. But we have to go far beyond

    1067
    milk in this question of nutrition. The slogan here must be "production for distribution and consumption according to need." That should be the fundamental objective of our agricultural policy—to satisfy the nutritional requirements of the people of this country. I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a great potential market for prime Scotch beef; but I would say to him that it must be delivered from the tyranny of the vested interests in Smithfield Market, which has been one of the banes of Scottish meat production in the past. My right hon. Friend is perfectly right when he says that the marketing of home-grown beef in this country wants to be organised from top to bottom when this war is over; and, before any question of removing the present system of control comes up, we must have something better to take its place. I agree too with what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of popularising the great foods of Scotland. It is very important that we should really try to convince the English that they do not at present eat porridge. What they call porridge is not porridge at all. The same thing goes for herrings too. I had a deplorable experience about an hour and a quarter ago. I saw on the menu of this House of Commons——
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot allow that matter to be discussed.
    Mr. Boothby: Perhaps I shall have an opportunity to describe my lunch-time experience to-morrow. It was my right hon. Friend who told us in his opening speech that he wished, if possible, to popularise Scotch food not only in Scotland, but outside as well. I think it is of immense importance that this campaign should be carried through as far and as fast as possible.
    Lastly, I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan). Talking of skilled labour, he said with truth that there is no higher skilled man in the world than the really efficient all-round agricultural worker. As my hon. Friend pointed out, he has to learn four or five skilled trades at once before he can be considered efficient. His wages should be brought at least to the level of those of skilled workers in other trades; but if you are, going to do that, you have got to
    1068
    have what my right hon. Friend referred to in his opening remarks—a just price for the products of our agriculture, and given the just price you will have the just worth.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): I think it is very clear from the tenor of the day's Debate that the Committee warmly approves and congratulates the farmers and farm workers of Scotland on their splendid agricultural war effort, which has been second to none. I thank hon. Members who have been good enough to refer to any part played by the Scottish Office in that effort. The statistics given by my right hon. Friend, as the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland, are most eloquent of the success of the effort North of the border, but the policy as laid down by the Government in the light of the larger needs of the day has to be linked with production. I think the Committee will agree that the agricultural executive committees, with chairmen and members serving in honorary capacities, as well as their paid staffs, and my colleagues in the Department of Agriculture under their Secretary are entitled to some small share of recognition in whatever has been achieved, even if the prime credit goes to the farmer and farm worker. It is a record of which we may be proud.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), in a speech which the Committee clearly considered, if I may say so, the best of the many interesting speeches he has made, touched on many points. The answer to the question he put about the attested herd scheme—as to whether the scheme was open to beef cattle—is that the scheme is open to them, but that the bonus does not apply. My hon. Friend then turned to the question of harvest labour. In the war years the farmer has never been let down even though difficulties have increased year by year. As military operations became more widespread the soldiers, who were our great standby, became less available. We have relied, on a splendid response from a larger number of civilian volunteers each year who have done the most admirable work. Without their help we could not have got the crops in. My hon. Friend was anxious about the position of the present harvest. No one is satisfied or certain about it until the harvest is in, and, therefore; I do not want to spread

    1069
    any feeling of false assurance, but I would say that the labour division of the Department has been working on this problem since about January. We have realised that soldiers are not likely to be available this year and we have set out to recruit a greater civilian army. We want 12,000, for instance, in relation to the grain harvest, and so on. The response has been good so far.
    I would Eke to emphasise the response made by industrial workers. At this date last year 950 industrial workers had volunteered for harvest labour. This year 4,336 have volunteered. I think that is a magnificent effort on the part of the industrial workers. Having got that great increase in the figure, I am anxious to assure my hon. Friend that we shall not be satisfied until we have got 12,000 volunteers at least from other sources as well as industrial workers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with whom I have been in close touch on this subject, told me long ago that if ever I saw any danger of a serious diminution of labour being available at the time of the harvest I was to come to him at once and special measures would be taken by the Government to see that the harvest was got in. On the question of school children, for instance, I think we had 55,000 out last year for the potato harvest. They were splendid. We anticipate a slightly greater number this year, say 60,000. Arrangements have been improved, supervision has been improved and we are grateful to all the teachers who helped us last year, and whose experience has helped us to improve the scheme this year.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth raised the question of cultivations during 1944–45. I think it is generally agreed that we have reached the maximum limit in Scotland in terms of tillage last year. 1943 will probably prove to have been the peak year of our agricultural war effort, and if we maintain that we shall have done very well indeed. In 1944–45 we shall have to look for higher yields and the bringing in of worth while marginal land. We have had some remarkable results with marginal land. In order to accomplish the policy we have in mind for 1944–45, and taking the long term view as well, it will be necessary to have regard to a gradual re-development of livestock husbandry in order to keep the largest possible tillage acreage in good heart. We have constantly upgraded our
    1070
    cattle in the matter of livestock and this part of our policy will be borne very much in mind. Before the cultivation policy for 1944–45 was arrived at there was a series of regional conferences to which committees sent their chairmen and technical officers. The pith of it all can be summed up from this extract of the decisions which were reached:
    "While the reports are to the effect that the better classes of arable land have not suffered from the programmes of intensive cropping of the last five years, careful enquiries throughout the country show that no increase in the present record area of tillage can be expected. The signs point rather to a small and gradual reduction of the area under crop on farms of secondary quality where more arable land than at present requires a rest by being put back to grass for a period. This will have to be arranged with discrimination in appropriate cases and with an eye to the future development of livestock husbandry. Such a reduction of the area under crop would not necessarily mean a proportionate fall in total yields since by concentrating intensive attentions on a slightly smaller acreage of land the results in crop and stock can be materially improved. Such a policy would be quite in keeping with any demand that agricultural production should be maintained at its highest level of yield and efficiency."
    That covers the cultivations position fairly well. My hon. Friend then turned to a pamphlet—"The Husbandman Waiteth"—in which he said he had enjoyed the illustrations. He also said that he did not expect a major pronouncement on Government policy to be made by an Under-Secretary. This matter also exercised the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). Well, as far as longterm policy is concerned it is not only the husbandman who waiteth; the Under-Secretary also waiteth. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his opening remarks, discussions have taken place on the long term policy and the situation presumably shifts down here, where discussions at the official level continue. I trust that we shall not have to wait too long, because we are as keen as any farmer that the long term policy shall be forthcoming. In the meantime we have an earnest, and I place a higher value on it than my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth did, in the guaranteed prices for four years. I think we might look on that guarantee on the highest basis and as an earnest of the Government's intentions. The points raised by my hon. Friend about the Hill Sheep Report I will come to a little later.

    1071
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow had obviously taken a great deal of interest in, and had gone to some trouble in studying certain aspects of, our agricultural problems. He was, first of all, concerned about the possible exploitation of land but I think my right hon. Friend covered that adequately. I could not agree with my hon. Friend from Linlithgow more, and with other hon. Members who referred to the Land Court, in saying that the functions of that Court might be extended in the appropriate sphere and that that Court can play a greater part in the long term policy. Whether in connection with the Hill Sheep Report or security of tenure and so on one can see great possibilities for the development of the functions of the Land Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow turned to the question of deer forests, a point' which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway. For my own part I should put the question of deer forests into two categories—deer forests proper, and large sheep farms which are in danger of having to close down and go back to deer forest or derelict conditions. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, in no case has he hesitated to requisition, on a recommendation of a committee, where no arrangements could be come to for the use of a deer forest for grazing.
    But I want to enter a word of warning, which was implicit in the remarks of my right hon. Friend. It would be a mistake to imagine that all the 189 deer forests of Scotland, totalling about 3,500,000 acres, were suitable for grazing purposes. When you get down to the problem you will find, as we have found by experience, that on the basis of the Land Court's assessment a further 72,000 sheep and 3,000 cattle may mark the maximum that can be carried. You get varying results. May I quote another case to show the successful side of things? I quote the example of the sheep farm at Invercassley in Sutherland-shire and the adjoining deer forest of Ben-more? The farm amounted to 34,000 acres and carried 4,260 sheep, which were on the point of being sold and which would, presumably, have meant that the farm would become derelict and join the forest. The Department of Agriculture also took over 23,000 acres of the adjoining deer forest of Benmore—
    Mr. Kirkwood: What is meant by "taking over"? Does it mean that the Government are taking over this land?
    Mr. Chapman: It was requisitioned under the Defence Regulations.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does it mean that the land now belongs to the Government and that when the war ends this land, which has been made valuable, will go back to the landlord?
    Mr. Chapman: It depends. This land was taken over under the Defence Regulations. It does not necessarily go back afterwards, but it may do. It my hon. Friend means: "Is this land in the keeping of the Government forever?" the answer is "No," but it may become so; it all depends on the circumstances after the war. [Interruption.] We must view things in the light of a long-term policy. By that time we shall be able to see what ought to be done.
    Major McCallum: Would my hon. Friend say that this farm of Invercassley might become a deer forest? Does he know that it lies almost at sea level?
    Mr. Chapman: What I am getting down to is not necessarily deer forest but derelict land. It would be more accurate to say derelict land. Anyhow it was going out of production as a sheep farm. That is the important point. But the stock of sheep has improved from 4,260 to 6,560, and the condition of the sheep has improved vastly with proper management for the average weight of the fleece rose from 2.476 lbs. to 3.8 lbs. and the general death rate among the sheep declined. On the other hand, we have had cases where we have had urgent representations to requisition parts of deer forests, and have done so, and have then had the greatest difficulty in getting them stocked. In one case we have had to get the owner to come forward and stock the forest. The general idea that everyone is anxious to rush out and put sheep on every bit of deer forest is not accurate. There is a great deal of deer forest which will remain of sporting and scenic value only though as much as can be used, and requires to be used, will be used and my right hon. Friend has not hesitated to take action where advisable.
    Major McCallum: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the land that remains

    1073
    deer forest could not be anything else but deer forest?
    Mr. Chapman: I tried to make that fairly clear when I alluded to the fact that even the Land Court said that 72,000 more sheep could be carried. Still, when added to what is already being grazed, that is a small part of the whole, because a large part of it must necessarily remain deer forest. It might be afforested, but that is outside my purview.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is it the considered view of the Scottish Office, with their war experience, that an overwhelming number of deer forests must permanently remain deer forests and not be utilised for production?
    Mr. Chapman: No, I have indicated the amount which the Land Court in a survey considered could be used effectively for grazing, and part of the deer forests may be of use for forestry. I am not qualified to speak on that but there are great areas which are no good for grazing because of their extremely rough nature.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The point has been made that, once a deer forest, it is bound to be a deer forest always. There is not a vestige of truth in that because hundreds of hardy boys who defended their native land were driven over the seas at the time of the Highland clearances.
    Mr. Chapman: I think the point my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) was making was that there are parts which, by the very nature of the soil, always were of a very rough character. Even at the time the hon. Member is speaking about, when those districts were more populated, there were still parts that could not be used effectively for grazing. They were never, by their nature, designed for that kind of thing.
    Mr. Kirkwood: In the Highlands you can still see the remnants of the houses which were unroofed, when their owners were chased out of the glens.
    Mr. Chapman: Those parts obviously can be brought back. That is, doubtless, the kind of the area the Land Court had in mind when they were classifying possible grazings, but there is some that cannot be used. The hon. Member for Galloway asked if I could give the number of ewes being carried on the deer forests that have been taken over.
    Mr. McKie: I asked how many ewes the Government put on these areas to start with, how many now remain, and how many had to be sold.
    Mr. Chapman: There were 17,720 ewes and 546 cattle put on. I cannot at the moment give the rest of the answer my hon. Friend requires but I will see that he has it. Results have varied. In sonic cases they have been quite good. My hon. Friend also asked about increased costs arising from wages without a variation in price of milk to the producer.
    Mr. McKie: I was speaking of the price level of agricultural produce as a whole and pointing out that my hon. Friend had escaped some of the stormy seas that the Minister of Agriculture had encountered because Scottish agricultural Members had not been up and doing since the rise in the cost of production.
    Mr. Chapman: In the matter of adjustments of -prices to cover costs, especially wages, the Government has clearly to take account of the general position of the industry, and not merely the question of any particular increased cost. There are close consultations between farmers and the Government on this question of profitability, which comes into it with the general picture.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald), in a speech which covered a great deal of ground, and which it would take rue a long time to answer in detail, dealt first of all with what steps could or should be taken to ensure the maintenance of agricultural prosperity. That is a consideration the Government must obviously have in mind in any long-term policy and I cannot anticipate any action that they may propose, but my hon. Friend's point of view will doubtless receive consideration. He put forward a carefully thought out scheme to my right hon. Friend and the Department of Agriculture and it was very carefully considered. The points that he raised then and has raised again to-day will not be lost sight of in the general discussion. He then raised the question of the improvement of pasture, and drew attention to the way the Hill Sheep Report emphasised this. With its ordered programme the re-furbishing of the hills is one of the very bases of the thing. A hill sheep policy which did hot go in for improving grazing generally

    1075
    would have no meaning. We have to put back what was there in the past: to correct extractive farming. My hon. Friend need not have anxiety. We have some remarkable experiments in the way of re-seeding—I have seen them—and we have many demonstration plots and farms throughout Scotland showing how grazing can be improved three or four fold in value. My hon. Friend went on to the question of wages and prices. In any policy which His Majesty's Government may adopt one of the items in a discussion of a fair price and a stable market must obviously be that of a fair wage to the farm worker. That is generally recognised and accepted. I do not think I can go beyond that in answering the various points he raised. He will find, I think, that there are other points on which he touched which I have included in answers to other hon. Members.
    My Noble Friend the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) covered the whole gamut from rats to raspberries. He first touched upon long-term policy and quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am glad that he noted that remark. I have also noted it, but I want to say that in the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, whenever we have approached the Treasury, we have found them careful but never obstructive in any good case that we have put up to them. They have indeed been forthcoming. One should say that because the Treasury often get crashed on from great heights.
    My Noble Friend then turned to the question of the differentiation of fruit prices, first, as between Scotland and England, and then as between Lanarkshire and other parts of Scotland. This again is really a Ministry of Food matter, but I am informed that there were two areas for the purposes of pricing. No. 1 area takes in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Northern parts of England down to a line drawn somewhere through Yorkshire. No. 2 area covers the rest of the United Kingdom. I will send my Noble Friend a full list of the prices of the two areas. He will note from the list that there is a time lag of a fortnight between the price changes in Area 1 and those in Area 2. That is a deliberate provision on the part of the Ministry of Food because of the climatic difference between the two areas. The bulk of the Scottish crop of strawberries will be sold at the main price of
    1076
    81s. 8d., and this is also true of England Eighty-five per cent. of the English crop is normally marketed after 19th June at the main-crop price. As regards the higher prices for the berries in the earlier part of the season, they are about the same proportionately as before the war. The cost of producing the early fruit is much higher. I do not think the early berries are produced in Scotland at all. A difficulty entered into the question of prices because of the heavy frosts experienced in the southern parts of England. To meet that position the Ministry of Food created a new area called No.1A, and an increased price for growers was decided on because of the frost damage. The northern part of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been relatively free from frost damage, and that is why that increased price did not apply there.
    Mr. Mathers: The Minister should know that the frost hit the black-currant crop very seriously. I have been shown bushes from which last year eight pounds per bush were picked, but this year, because of the frost, there will be no more than one pound.
    Mr. Chapman: I was dealing specifically with strawberries and raspberries, but I will get information about blackcurrants and see that my hon. Friend has it. Roughly speaking, in the northern part of England, where a great percentage of the strawberry crop is grown, it was not severely damaged by frost and the main crop price was maintained. That was the same as the Scottish main crop price. The Scottish strawberry crop did not suffer from frost, but the raspberry crop did in the main growing counties of Perth, Angus and Fife. The damage, fortunately, was not of a serious nature. There was only a small reduction in yield and these counties were compensated by an increase in the maximum price from 74s. 8d. to 81s. 8d. The point I wish to make is that where damage occurred there has been an adjustment in price to compensate for it whether in England or Scotland. The crop in Lanarkshire was not affected by frost, and consequently there was no revision in price. I will remember the suggestion of my Noble Friend in regard to future negotiations. These things are discussed between the Department and the Ministry of Food, but my Noble Friend will appreciate that the Department of Agriculture for Scot-

    1077
    land does not necessarily have the last word.
    Lord Dunglass: Will my hon. Friend assure me that always in future the Department will have a say?
    Mr. Chapman: We are always consulted by the Ministry of Food and we make strong recommendations. This is an old problem, but we have made representations in the past and we shall continue to do so.
    My Noble Friend touched on the rat menace. It is a very serious thing. There are supposed to be about 6,000,000 rats in Scotland, and it is said that they do about £9,000,000 worth of damage in a year. I do not know how that figure is arrived at, but the damage is certainly very great. As one pair of rats can become Boo in the course of the year, the situation is one that has to be taken seriously. We have had a co-ordinated campaign. The local authorities, the agricultural executive committees and the Department of Scotland have been cooperating with other Ministries like the Ministry of Food in a real drive against rats.
    Mr. Buchanan: Has that campaign been confined to agricultural districts?
    Mr. Chapman: No, indeed. We work through the local authorities, who are technically responsible, and sometimes the Department of Agriculture has helped in urban problems where they have been acute.
    Mr. Buchanan: I wish they would look at the South side of Glasgow.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend will appreciate that although we have a staff of more than zoo rat catchers, we would like still more if we could get them. We are tackling this problem as vigorously as we can, and since they got going in September last the Department's schemes have disposed of 420,000 rats which is a good beginning. The size of the problem in agriculture may be judged from a report the other day that 4,000 rats were killed on one farm in a fortnight. A kill of 2,000 on a farm is by no means uncommon. My noble Friend raised the question of netting stacks while threshing was going on. That is required by a regulation all over Scotland, and serious attention is paid to infringements of it. The only way to
    1078
    get the rat menace down is for every-body to co-operate. If urban dwellers as well as country dwellers will report the presence of rats, we will do our best to tackle them.
    My Noble Friend asked about the Scottish Gardens and Allotments Committee. This Committee has done the most admirable work under Sir Robert Greig as chairman. There were fewer than 20,000 allotments in 1939, and in 1943 there were 84,000. The peak figure of the last war was 43,000, so that we have almost doubled the number over the last war, and that reflects the greatest credit on all concerned. It is difficult to assess the total amount of produce, but we think that there is a cumulative yield of something like 40,000 tons per annum of crops from those people who have been digging for victory. We are grateful to all who have taken part in the prosecution of that useful and valuable campaign.
    I think that covers most of the points that were raised by my Noble Friend, and I now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan). I find that I approach it with some difficulty because he started with the question of nationalisation of land and I have no authority to express any views on the subject on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I know what my own views are, and they are decisively against those of my hon. Friend, but my own views are not important and I cannot discuss the matter at any length. I quite agree with my hon. Friend, however, in his plea for a better distribution of population. It is obviously wrong and very unbalanced that a quarter of the population in Scotland should be jammed into a few square miles in the south and west. Let us face the fact, on the other hand, that however desirable a back-to-the-land movement may be, it will not be easy to realise and I do not think one can hold out any hope of being able to put hundreds of thousands of people back to the land. A flourishing agricultural industry and the technical training and the wages and all the rest of it will attract a great many and, I hope, a substantial proportion of the rising generation to the land.
    I have always thought, as a result of my reading about this back-to-the-land movement, that people tend to forget that agriculture is a way of life as well

    1079
    as a livelihood. Many people who take it up and who think that it is a very fine way of life, find that they just cannot stand it. There has to be a real love of agriculture and of the countryside. So do not let us imagine that anyone who desires to go to the country will necessarily settle there and do well. I add that as a word of caution, although I am 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend in his desire to get as many people on to our countryside as possible.
    My hon. Friend then went into the question of the export of cattle. Regarding our pedigree beasts being sent to the Argentine, I would point out to my hon. Friend that the very fact that that demand is there—and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth will confirm this—has allowed an enormous upgrading in the quality of our beasts at home. It is continually going on and benefits all our herds in Scotland. The question of the upgrading of our livestock is continually borne in mind, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend to see that there is another side to the case. On the general question of imports and exports, I would ask him to let us have the fullest details about those dehydrated frogs[Laughter]—it is a most solemn matter—which he says are being imported into Scotland for consumption. We ought to have all the details so that we can see what it is all about. I am looking to my hon. Friend to let us have the evidence in due course.
    The one point on which I should like to cross swords with my hon. Friend is his statement that the results of the use of school children in the harvest fields were not encouraging. There is no suggestion that one child goes into the field and does the work of one man. Possibly four children do the work of one man. I must rebut very vigorously the suggestion that the farmers do not think much of what those children are doing, because it is discouraging to the children who have done an extremely fine war job, and no one knows it better than the farmer.
    Mr. Sloan: I was only putting my own experience against that of my hon. Friend. I spoke about the employment of children in one area on the grain harvest. I think if he will consult his farming population, he will find they are of opinion that children are no use.
    Mr. Chapman: There is no question of young children doing the work of the grain harvest. That is for senior scholars, who are up to it. I think it is agreed that they do a good job of work, especially those from r6 years of age upwards. The test is that many go back to the same farms year after year, and are welcomed by the farmers. Without the help of that section of the population in the grain harvest we should be in a very difficult position indeed.
    Mr. Sloan: Could my hon. Friend let us have a return of the number of secondary scholars who have gone back, year after year, to the grain harvest?
    Mr. Chapman: I will certainly try to get the information which my hon. Friend wants. I was anxious not to leave undisturbed on the eve of harvest—in the midst of recruitment—the somewhat discouraging view that he presented, although I understand his feelings on the matter. I was very glad that he corrected his statement about the Women's Land Army, who have done a very fine job. What has surprised me about it is the number of girls from shops, factories and so on, all sorts of previous occupations, from mannequins to shop assistants, who have said that they want to stay on the land after the war. Some of them are of very slight build and you would not think they would be up to the job, but it is astonishing what they tackle. In the early days, farmers were exceedingly sceptical about taking on land girls, but now there is a long waiting list, and that is a great tribute to this service, in which, I know, my hon. Friend joins. Now I would turn to the observations made——
    Mr. Buchanan: I wonder whether there is going to be a chance of discussing education.
    Mr. Chapman: I am sorry if I am speaking too——
    Mr. Buchanan: I am not being critical of my hon. Friend and I do not want him to cut down his speech, but we were given a promise that the education Debate would start nearly an hour ago. My hon. Friend is doing what I think is his proper job, namely, properly covering the points raised in the agricultural Debate, and I make no criticism of him. It is terribly unfair that we should have

    1081
    been promised a Debate on education which should have started nearly an hour ago.
    Mr. Chapman: I was not aware of it, and no suggestion was made to me about it.
    Mr. Buchanan: Everybody I consulted about the Debate told me that the day was to be divided into two periods. I have not a single criticism of my hon. Friend; I think he is doing quite rightly and it would be wrong if he did not take time, but I still think that education should have some time given to it, and that this is not being fair.
    Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said and I will try to cut down my remarks.
    Mr. Buchanan: No, I do not want my hon. Friend to cut down his speech, because that would not be fair.
    Mr. Chapman: Anyhow, I am sorry about this.
    Mr. McNeil: The time allotted is not sufficient, either for education or for agriculture.
    Mr. Chapman: I will turn to the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll, who referred to the eradication of bracken. The Department send out machines with drivers. In some parts auxiliary labour is available, for hand-cutting, particularly students at holiday time. A great service that my hon. and gallant Friend could render to Scotland in this matter is to invent the kind of machine to which he refers. We have some of the best machines we could find, and we have also experimented in many ways with bracken, trying to make use of it such as in the making of paper, potash and so on.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Let the pigs get on with it.
    Mr. Chapman: The difficulty is that some of these places are rather remote for pigs. My hon. and gallant Friend raised another point about the Forestry Commission and the grazing on the higher ground. He knows that I have had correspondence with him on that point and that we have been in touch with the Forestry Commission, who are willing to co-operate, where the trees are old enough
    1082
    not to be damaged by stock. My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth and other hon. Members touched upon the very important question of the Hill Sheep Report. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that I will not be long.
    Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend is putting me in a wrong position. I do not want to limit him in any way as I think he is doing his job. All I say is that it is terrible that he can do his job only at the expense of the Debate on education, which many of us thought was to come on some little time ago.
    Mr. Chapman: If I may, I will then turn to this question of the Hill Sheep Report. As has been clear throughout the Debate, future legislation is involved, therefore one is very circumscribed in what one can discuss. I would like to emphasise—it is the only way in which I can approach the matter without being out of Order—briefly what it means to us. Scotland agriculturally has been described in some parts—and it might be applied to the whole of Scotland—agriculturally, as
    "a beggar's mantle with a fringe of gold."
    That saying emphasises the fact that of our total agricultural land 70 per cent. is rough grazing and only 30 per cent. crops and grass, whereas in England the percentage of rough grazing is 19 per cent. Forty per cent. in Scotland is used for hill sheep farming; the comparative English figure is 16 per cent. In December, 1940, there were 3,325,000 ewes, shearling ewes and gimmers in Scotland. Of these 60 per cent, were hill sheep. The comparative percentage in England and Wales was from 20 to 25 per cent. I do not make these comparisons with any desire to minimise the hill sheep problem South of the Border, but to show what a big thing hill sheep farming is to Scottish agriculture as a whole. I need not emphasise that by other figures which I have. It seems to me that the longer the report has "lain on the table" the more it has received general support. Even those who were sceptical at the beginning have come round to see that here is a possible solution. I think that is the best tribute to those who gave so much time in producing it.
    Mr. Snadden: Could my hon. Friend answer the question of whether there was any possibility of discussing that report?
    Mr. Chapman: That is not primarily a matter for me but I think my hon. Friend can rest assured that my right hon. Friend would welcome a discussion when occasion offers.
    I would like to say more on hill sheep but I must pass to the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). He started on the question of hot and cold tea and was still on nutrition at the end of his remarks. He referred to land speculation. I would point out to him that under war-time conditions my right hon. Friend has the power to refuse to allow dispossession of a tenant where there is an element of land speculation in a sale. My hon. Friend touched on animal stock farming, mixed rotational farming, and of course he was merely emphasising all the time what is stated in the Government's pledge on post-war agriculture, namely, to maintain a healthy and well-balanced agriculture. That, I think, covers the position which my hon. Friend set out. But the pith of his remarks was the question of potatoes. This matter, as he rightly pointed out, is really one for the Ministry of Food, who assure us that they will be clearing the stocks in the area in question during the whole of this month. When my hon. Friend says it was not fair to expect the farmer to pay the premium against starvation by carrying these stocks, I think I must rebut that by pointing out to my hon. Friend that these growers could have entered into a direct contract with the Ministry of Food, as was pointed out in an interruption from below the gangway. It is those who did not enter into a contract with the Ministry of Food but who went to their merchants who are placed in this particular position.
    Mr. Boothby: Surely those merchants are acting on behalf of the Ministry of Food—they are authorised merchants?
    Mr. Chapman: They may be authorised merchants, but I am distinguishing between those who contracted direct with the Ministry and those who did not.
    There may have been a large number of small growers who are affected by this, and that arises from the fact that, anxious to increase our acreage and go beyond what the main growing areas could give,
    1084
    we had to resort to asking for small acreages to be grown by the people in Aberdeenshire. They responded very well. Indeed I imagine the Ministry of Food's problem has been the question of the transportation of small loads. However, we have made representations to them and we shall continue to' do so, and hope that this will be avoided in the future. Possibly, I can hold out no promise on this, we may not have to press our demands quite so vigorously in this area. Potatoes are still very high up the Ministry of Food's priority list. The Ministry of Food is counting on a very large acreage of potatoes and we have to try and get it. He may count on us pressing this matter.
    I think I have covered most of the points that were raised, and I would like to conclude on this note. With the problems of labour, shortage of supplies and double summer time, which benefits the urban worker but is no blessing to the dairy farmer, agriculture in war time has not been easy. That is not the whole story. Thousands of acres have been taken away for military purposes. Sonic areas have been cleared for training needs. I will not refer particularly to the areas which have been taken over. For obvious reasons the Committee will not expect me to do that, but I know the Committee will join me in wholehearted tribute to those farmers and their families who had to be dispossessed, sometimes at short notice, and who took it in such good part. It is a heavy blow to be asked suddenly to leave your farm at short notice, to see land cultivated year by year, perhaps generation after generation, churned up by the fierce wheels of war. Yet young and old alike have taken this willingly and cheerfully, and I want from this Box to pay our tribute to them. They did it willingly and cheerfully because they knew they would be helping the fellows who are now doing so magnificently in Normandy. The successes achieved there will be their recompense. To them, and to the men who come back, the best welcome home we can give is that they shall come to a countryside which is fully alive again, where there is no neglect of the land and where there is a sound long term policy. For the urgent present, and while they are away, we have to get this coming harvest in, and hon. Members can be of the very greatest assistance if they will influence their constituents to

    1085
    come out and help us. It is on that note of the job to be done that I conclude these remarks.
    Mr. Drewe (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS IV

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,768,609, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum neceessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for public education in Scotland, including grants in aid of the Education (Scotland) Fund: for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; and for grants to approved associations and other expenses in connection with youth service."—[NOTE: £,850,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. Buchanan: We have two hours left for the discussion on this subject. The feeling among Scottish Members is that this is an important subject, which should not be scamped. Is there no means of getting more time to discuss Scottish education?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am not skilled in the technical difficulties in the way of the Committee. That is a matter which must be discussed through the usual channels, but, as far as I am concerned, I shall not——
    Mr. Buchanan Mr. Buchanan rose——
    Mr. Johnston: Now that we have only two hours, let me go on.
    Mr. Buchanan: I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that he is the Secretary of State for Scotland, dealing with one of the most important subjects that we have to consider. I hope he is not going to scamp it.
    Mr. Johnston: We cannot have it both ways; we have got two hours.
    Mr. McNeil: The Government have the power to arrange the hours of sitting. None of us wants to see the Secretary of State scamping his remarks. We have already made representations to have this Sitting extended, and I am disappointed that the Government, of which my right hon. Friend is a member, have not seen fit to do that.
    The Chairman (Major Milner): It is, of course, not possible, at this stage, for the Government to extend the time without losing the Allotted Day. But I suggest that if hon. Members would exercise the self-denying ordinance that Scottish Members have exercised in the past, that would help. It should be possible in that way to get through the Debate, to the satisfaction of all concerned.
    Major Lloyd: May I add my own quota to the opinions already expressed, that my right hon. Friend should not cut down his speech, to which we, as well as Scotland generally, are looking forward, simply because other Members are waiting to speak?
    Mr. Maxton: I do not want my right hon. Friend, with all my regard for him, to be in the position of an uncriticised Fuehrer.
    Mr. Johnston: As the hon. Member will clearly recognise, I am in some difficulty here. We have two hours, and I propose to meet the maximum number of points of view in this Committee. The arrangements that may be made in future cannot be discussed here to-day.
    It will be observed that there is an increase in the Estimate, amounting to £436,000. Of this sum £398,000 will go to the education authorities, and the balance to technical colleges and central institutions generally. The increase of £398,000 to the local authorities is made up, for the most part, of, first, a grant in respect of the war bonus and teachers' salaries, amounting to £176,000; secondly, meals and milk in schools, amounting to £184,000, and an increase in the teacher grant amounting to £145,000. There are offsets to these increases. For example, there are deductions on A.R.P. works, amounting to over £100,000. But the net increase to education authorities is £398,000. School feeding grants have risen from £471,000 to £655,000. This campaign for feeding in schools, which was launched in the autumn of 1941 on a big scale, has been pursued with vigour. Canteen equipment has been provided for schools, and, from 1st April, 1943, no charge has fallen on the education authorities for the building, adaptation, or equipment of kitchens or dining rooms. Capital costs were met from the central fund. The number of children receiving dinners at school has increased from 50,000 in De-

    1087
    cember, 1941, to 175,000 in February, 1944, and during the year the numbers receiving dinners have increased by 50,000 and lunches by almost 2,000. The percentage receiving meals at school is now over 25 per cent. of all the children on the register—an increase of 6 per cent. on the figure for 1943, and of 14 per cent. on the figure for 1942.
    The number of pupils receiving milk at school, as apart from meals, has increased by 14,000 during the past 12 months, and has now reached the very considerable figure of 69 per cent. of the entire school population of Scotland. In West Lothian 85 per cent. of the children are receiving milk at school, in Mid Lothian 82 per cent., in Glasgow 83 per cent., in Edinburgh 8o per cent. So far as midday meals are concerned, the best figure, curiously enough, is reached by Peebles County, with almost 43 per cent. It is closely followed by Lanark County, with 38 per cent., and by Dumbarton County, with 36 per cent. The cities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh are practically running neck and neck, Edinburgh with 23 per cent., Glasgow and Dundee with 22 per cent., and Aberdeen with 21 per cent. While the school medical examinations have been restricted in most parts of the country, owing to war conditions, all the evidence there is in the continuing examinations goes to show that the health of the school child is steadily improving, and, as I announced the other day, on the Health Estimates, in Glasgow, in particular, the height and weight of the school child, both at entry to the registers and at the school-leaving date at 13, are materially improving over the figures for the last pre-war years.
    During the year, the Advisory Council on Education, which is a statutory body, and which was reconstituted by Order in Council on 5th November, 1942, has bent itself steadily to the task of preparing blueprints for a better educational system in Scotland. The Council has, as its chairman, the Principal of Aberdeen University, and, as its vice-chairman, the Lord Provost of Dundee, Sir Garnet Wilson, and there are three hon. Members of this House on it. Teachers' representatives are there, local authority representatives are there and we believe we have got a first-class Advisory Council. We have given this Council seven
    1088
    separate remits up to now, and we have get three of them back, reported upon. The seven remits were these: First, questions of citizenship teaching in the school. Second, the provision of education from the nursery school to the completion or primary education, and arrangements for promotion from primary to secondary education. Third remit to consider what educational provision should be made for young persons who have completed their primary education and have not yet reached the age of 18. This covers the subject of day continuation classes. The fourth remit—a most important one, upon which I shall have a word to say in a moment—was on the recruitment and supply of teachers. The fifth was to consider whether grants should be made to voluntary organisations making provision for the education of adults of 18 years of age and over. The sixth was to inquire into the provision made for the training of teachers in Scotland. The seventh was on technical education.
    The three reports we have got back are on citizenship, on day continuation classes and on the recruitment and supply of teachers. On the subject of the compulsory day continuation classes, I can say little in view of the legislation which I hope to introduce this year. I can say little beyond this—that I am in substantial agreement with the recommendations of the Advisory Council, which have been published in pamphlet form and are available to hon. Members. On citizenship, a memorandum is being prepared now by the Department of Education, and, indeed, I believe it has been- completed, dealing, point by point, with the recommendations made by the Advisory Council. When this memorandum is received, and I have had time to consider it, I hope to enlist the aid of the local authorities in making considerable experiments of the sort that are proposed by the Advisory Council. The basis, the essential feature, of that report was that there should be widespread experiments, and I hope to see that effect is given to that recommendation.
    But it is on the third report which the Council has given us, on the existing arrangements for the recruitment and supply of teachers in Scotland, that I should like to say a word. I believe this is the keystone of the whole educational arch. If we cannot recruit in adequate numbers, the right type of teacher, then all

    1089
    our schemes and programmes for a better education of our children will be in vain. The Advisory Council has reported to us, and the Government accepts its figures, that, by and large, we shall require to look for an additional 4,000 teachers. That is on the basis, and on the assumption, that 2,500 married women teachers will remain in the service. On that basis, we require 4,000 additional, and, to the extent that married women teachers leave their employment, we must add to the number of 4,000 that we require.
    Major Lloyd: A very conservative estimate.
    Mr. Johnston: Well, I am taking their figure, which I understood is a unanimous figure. It is a unanimous report, and I take their figure that we are 4,000 teachers short on the basis that existing employees and personnel remain in the profession, but, to the extent that this existing personnel is diminished, you would require to add to the 4,000. The Advisory Council say that, if the school-leaving age is raised to 15 in the first post-war year, we shall require to get the services of this additional 4,000 teachers by exceptional means. These exceptional means are specified under four headings. The first is by improving conditions and salaries to attract from schools an increasing number of first class personnel who will make the teaching profession their life work. I am happy to say that the newly constituted National Joint Council of local authorities and teachers' organisations, under the chairmanship of a late Member of this House, Lord Teviot, has now started work upon this great problem.
    Secondly, the Advisory Council proposes a Selection Board. This Selection Board should be constituted by the Central Executive Committee for the training of teachers, and should consist of five persons from their number, one representative from the Directors of Education, the Directors of Studies of the four training centres and the Executive Officer of the National Committee. This Selection Board would have power to deal with applications from men and women now being released from the Services. Applicants without the necessary qualifications for admission to chapters 4 and 6, should be required to sit for a special examination, but the Board may, in exceptional circumstances, waive this provision.
    1090
    Candidates admitted to training should be on probation for one term. Arrangements should be made for proper tutorial courses, and prescribed conditions would be laid down. Modifications of entrance requirements may be necessary for skilled craftsmen required for day schools and day continuation classes. Correspondence classes would be instituted and tutorial arrangements made.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am uncertain whether the right hon. Gentleman is giving us the report, or his views on the report.
    Mr. Johnston: No, this is the report of the Advisory Council on Education, and I understand it is a unanimous one. I want to add that Departmental action is being taken forthwith to give effect to these recommendations. Every step that can usefully be taken to augment the supply of teachers, based upon these recommendations, will be taken.
    Here I should like to pay a tribute to the great body of headmasters in our Scottish schools. They, too, are key men in this profession, and I have noticed with appreciation the strenuous efforts many of them are making, under exceptionally difficult conditions as to staff, black-out and so on, not only to maintain their school traditions but to create an esprit de corps among their pupils which will have far-reaching effects upon those pupils in their later lives. Both the headmasters and headmistresses, and the Directors of Education, are doing everything they can to instil the spirit of good citizenship into our school administration, and I am duly grateful to them for their efforts in that direction. May I also express the Government's appreciation of and thanks to the teaching staff and administrative staff for the voluntary services they have rendered in school feeding and youth welfare arrangements, which are now an integral and prominent part of the normal school curriculum? The Advisory Council on Education has given us three reports. I have indicated what steps we propose to take forthwith upon these Reports and I hope and trust that, as this Council adds further reports to those already given us, we shall be able to continue to give effect to the careful recommendations which they have so far provided us, and that, between us, we shall be able to build up an educational policy which will be a credit to our

    1091
    country and a credit to the Advisory Council, to whose energies and endeavours I pay my utmost respects.
    Mr. Buchanan: Education is one of the most important subjects that this Committee and indeed Scottish Members can discuss. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing his Estimates has confined himself in the main to the report of his Advisory Council. He dealt at the beginning with certain facts and figures as to school feeding and the supply of milk to children, but he was not able to deal with the present position, in the time he allocated to himself, in regard to the wider sense of education and its progress in regard to the child. I would like to have heard how the education of the child is now progressing. Is it satisfactory, what steps are being taken, and what are the conditions under which education is now proceeding? I do not know whether I am impatient or too moderate, but I often feel that on these issues we discuss what is expected to happen years ahead and rarely discuss what is happening at the present time in regard to the children attending our schools. We must always remember on every Scottish Estimate, whether it be for agriculture, education or public health, that the problem of the housing of our population is always closely related to educational subjects, and that you cannot do all you can or would like to do in education when the great housing problem remains as it is.
    I was surprised when the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that section of the report on the future of the training of teachers and told us he needed, on a conservative estimate, something like 4,000 teachers, provided married teachers remained in the schools. But even if one puts the estimate at 6,000 or 7,000 teachers, the problem would not appear to me to be staggering. In any other walk of life, 6,000 or 7,000 would not be an impossible figure, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. Teaching is not an unattractive profession, but what is lacking is that great masses of very poor people are debarred from entering the profession because of poverty and the difficulties of parents in maintaining children and providing for their education. There would not be the slightest difficulty in any other trade, for example, the build-
    1092
    ing trade, offering the same terms and security as teaching, in getting 7,000 additional people. The difficulty in this matter is the fact that masses of poor people cannot afford to have their children educated for the profession.
    I would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to deal with what I regard as one of the most reactionary steps ever taken in education in Scotland. In these days, with greater demands for teachers and doctors, facilities should be made as free as possible, and yet at a time when we should have been making the entrance into these professions free and open, there has been an increase in the fees of university students. Just at a time when the fields of science, medicine and teaching should be open to the humblest people there has been one of the most reactionary steps ever known in Scotland. One would have thought that the reverse would have been the case and that there would have been a reduction in fees. If it was necessary to increase university fees and so penalise those students who were about to enter, the Secretary of State for Scotland and those responsible for running the universities should have come to the Treasury and asked for increased funds. The Government can pour out subsidies for hill sheep farming, and I have not heard anyone complain. Surely, it is one of the most important things in the training of teachers that the universities should be available to those who wish to enter the profession. I come from a family members of which have entered the university, and it was a terrible struggle. I look back grimly, but the difficulties to some extent have been increased. They talk of the new world. One would have thought that at least, in making an approach to the new world, education and equality of treatment, for which every good democrat has asked, would have been one of the first steps to be taken. I am surprised that no mention was made of this question by the right hon. Gentleman.
    I do not often intervene in educational matters. In places that have been poverty stricken through many years, education does not always play a part. When you are thinking of food and shelter, you are apt to let the beauties and culture of life pass you by. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at another matter. One is at a loss to know why, particularly in the City of

    1093
    Glasgow, and indeed throughout Scotland, in the middle of 1944, we have still schools being used by the A.R.P. Let me take one school, Kinning Park School, with which I have family connections. It is in a very poor working-class district near the docks, and while it is vital in peace it is more vital than ever in war. Yet, after four and a half years of war, that school, in a poverty-stricken district, is still occupied by the A.R.P. I should have thought that by this time the local authorities and the Scottish Education Department would have taken steps to deal with it. For a long time it was a feeding centre as well, and on feeding day the children had to queue up in a Glasgow street in the rain with no shelter in order to get into the feeding centre. After correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman that was altered, but the A.R.P. are still there, and I feel that in a well-to-do district that just does' not happen. I ask my right hon. Friend and his Under-Secretary to tell me in what school in Langside or Queen's Park this would happen.
    Major Lloyd: I could mention half a dozen in East Renfrewshire.
    Mr. Buchanan: I do not deal with East Renfrewshire, I am asking about my district of Glasgow. I should have thought the poorer districts would have had first preference; for this reason, that in tenement dwellings, where people are poorly housed, the school is of value not only for education but for looking after the children. I am really aghast at the way in which what has happened in the case of this school has been tolerated.
    I thought the right hon. Gentleman might have devoted a sentence to how he is dealing with buildings, and have given us some kind of a picture of the future of the school buildings in Scotland. Merely to increase teachers, to put them into some of the schools in my Division and throughout the West of Scotland, will not solve the teaching problem. They are practically slum schools. It irritates me at times that the people who live in the poor districts have to put up with them, while those who are fortunate enough to be moved into good houses have the good schools. The poor unfortunates that cannot move out are left with things as they were, in a backwater. I know the right hon. Gentleman will tell me of the difficulties in war-time, but what
    1094
    steps are being taken in the future to plan school dwellings in working class districts?
    I want to raise a question which is not of very great national importance but concerns my own city, and to some extent its administration. Great numbers of parents want to send their children to what we call the higher grade schools, such as Queen's Park and Albert Road. I do not know the process of selection that goes on, but I do know that none of my people ever get near them except in isolated cases. It is not altogether snobbery that prompts people to send their children to what we call good schools. I think there are two other reasons: one is that the school is better, and the other is that the standard of teaching is better, or held to be better. In these days, when we are supposed to be building up a democratic system, I think the time has arrived to see that the standard of teaching in the humblest school should be at least as high as in the others.
    With regard to the feeding of the children, it is true that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted figures—particularly in regard to milk—to show the vast increase in the extension of school feeding. My own view is that much of that could be extended further still. There are too many restrictive inquiries even yet. It is just a source of annoyance when you examine people's incomes. I think the stage has now been reached when school feeding and school milk should be free to any child who wants it. I would advocate an educational supply. One of the best things ever done for education was when the majority of the Glasgow Town Council decided to supply books free. It was an excellent step, and part of the educational system. I think the supply of milk and food now ought to be free without any restrictive measures at all, but if children do not want to take it then there need be no compulsion.
    The Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred has dealt with citizenship, the raising of the school age and the training of school teachers. There is a great field in Scotland for education if we care to devote our time to it, but education cannot be divorced from the wide problems of housing and economic policy within Scotland itself. Whatever other steps he takes, I hope he will see that the children who are not well-placed

    1095
    economically, who have the ill-fortune to come from poor homes, have the gates of education thrown wide and freely open to them. It is sometimes said that they can sit for bursaries, but that is not always a satisfactory method. I have seen the bursary scheme at work in my own family, children sitting up at nights and becoming stultified. It takes too much out of the child, it throws the onus of responsibility on the child, which is not fair, and to a child of that age it is too much of a strain. There is, however, a second reason. If you fail in the bursary you fail for all time; no other chance is given to you. If you have an income and you fail in a bursary you can still go on trying. I would suggest making the field of education free, sweeping away instead of extending university fees. Make education a national charge, make it an "on cost" to the community, throw every field open. I want to see in Scotland not merely education, not only slums abolished in a country where ill-housing abounds, but education so used that our folk may know much of the beauty they have lost, a little of culture, of music, of art, and I think through education that might yet come to them.
    Sir John Graham Kerr: I am sure that the whole Committee listened with extraordinary appreciation to the great speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not propose to criticise it, nor do I propose to criticise the machinery of education in Scotland. I would only say that I have great admiration for those who have to carry it out, for those hard-worked and not too well-remunerated officials, whether they be teaching or administrative. I would rather offer a few remarks on education itself, and on what my right hon. Friend called the system of education in Scotland. I think I have some qualification ns for expressing opinions about it. There is an old English proverb:
    "The proof of a pudding is in the eating of it."
    So it is with education; the proof of education is in the results that it produces. For a long part of my professional life I happened to be head of a great teaching department, in one of our great Scottish universities. Through that department passed a continuous
    1096
    stream of students, numbering not hundreds but thousands, and my contact with those students, who came from all kinds of schools, was not the mere contact of a lecturer from his rostrum but the far more intimate relations of a teacher in the laboratory. Watching these people at their practical work, guiding and, discussing, one had an extraordinarily favourable opportunity for judging how Scottish education does its work.
    There were various things which impressed me in my experience. One was the extraordinary training in the process of absorption of information. There was the most avid appetite for any sort of information; they gulped down, bolted, as much as was laid before them. But with this extraordinary power of absorption there was not joined anything in the way of discrimination. I remember how some of my students seemed quite mystified when they first came to the department and I told them that, whenever they had the chance, they must test the accuracy of what had been put to them by their teachers. It seemed quite a new idea to them, that they should ever have to check what had been told to them. They had been trained to accept what had been told to them. If you showed them a specimen, you would find that they simply projected into it the mental picture they had got from lecture or textbook; it might include details that happened to be absent in the particular specimen. There seemed to be a lack of flexibility; they were unable to switch over to new sets of ideas which came to them. But, as I said before, one has to remember that they had been taught the power of absorbing information and that they were really industrious. When I took up my post in Glasgow I used to be sceptical that students would ever kill themselves with overwork. I soon changed that idea. I found that there was a real danger in students working too hard. They were tremendously keen and interested in their work.
    Of course, we all know how important observation is in life, and important it is in a trade or business of any kind, or in handicrafts, or in a profession like medicine. The power to observe and interpret your observations is of the most tremendous importance. We also know that most of our adult fellow citizens are not so devoid of that power to observe

    1097
    or think about what they have observed. Where have they got that training? They got it, in the first place, in what is the greatest of all educational periods when, as small children, they were taught by their parents, when they experimented and observed, often with painful results to themselves. They pursued the scientific method of learning and later, when they became handcraftsmen or business men, or anything else, they trained themselves to observe numbers of things concerned with their trade or profession. But in the intervening period when they were immured in an ordinary day school, that process of training and observation practically ceased.
    We teach the child to memorise and to absorb, but we never train it to observe and think. It was not always so. In the far back ages, when our ancestors pursued the primitive mode of life, it was not so, as I observed for myself when living among primitive people in a remote corner of the world. I watched their system of education. The whole education of the boy was what it is fashionable to call nowadays, "citizenship," that is to say, training to play his part well in. the community in which he lives. The small boy was given his bow and arrow. With that he pursued birds and small game. He learnt to use that weapon, but he learnt something far more than that. He learnt to observe. His senses of sight and hearing were worked up to the highest pitch of acuity. He was trained in perceiving the slightest abnormal thing that happened. He learned far more than that, too. He learned to interpret what these things were and to react to them in the proper way. He learned more than that still. He learned to keep his mind absolutely flexible, to keep his wits about him the whole time and to be prepared for any emergency that might come his way.
    I wish we could do something to get back these old factors in education, observation and mental flexibility. How is it that they have disappeared? It is a paradoxical thing. They have disappeared through one of the most beneficent inventions ever made by mankind, the invention of the printed book, that invention by which we can gain access to the stored up knowledge of the rest of the world; that invention which has given us a new kind
    1098
    of heredity, by which we of one generation can pass on our knowledge to the next and in that way safeguard our civilisation from falling away and disappearing as has been the fate of many civilisations in the past; that invention which enables us to flit away from the sordid world of workaday affairs into other worlds where everything interests and nothing annoys. That invention it was which made mass education possible and which has squeezed observation, training and thinking into an imperceptibly small bulk as compared with the mere accumulation of information, good or bad. In this new world our minds are bombarded by books, magazines and newspapers, cinemas and wireless—bombarded with all sorts of ideas, true and false. Surely, if there was ever a time, the time is now when we should learn, not to absorb unthinkingly, but to be critical and to ponder well before we accept anything at all.
    I should like to go on for an hour. I must not do that, but there are just one or two things more that I might say. I wonder if my right hon. Friend ever notices the tremendous mental expansion that comes to a small boy when he is allowed to play about with tools in a workshop. It is quite phenomenal. It is a thing we ought to remember. While I am on that, may I allude to this other point? I wonder when we, the great British people, will realise not to talk as we do of work with the hand and work with the brain as if they were totally different things. Of course, it is the brain that works every little movement. The skilled artificer when he is making some beautiful piece of work, the artist in the painting of a picture—whatever it is that he is doing with his muscles, he is working his brain. A man who produces some beautiful piece of handiwork is not doing less but more real brainwork than a philosopher sitting in his study writing a book on philosophy or a poem, and yet—what nonsense it is—we think of only a literary man as a man who is well educated. I often think of a talk that I had many years ago with an old friend in Glasgow who was a great authority on the Clyde steamships. I happened to mention the old "Iona." He remarked darkly, "She is held together by the paint." I sometimes wonder whether we are not rather apt to think of our civilisation as being held together by

    1099
    the paint of literary culture and to forget the great steel fabric that lies underneath.
    Mr. McLean Watson: We have all listened with great interest to the hon. Member's contribution to the Debate but I want to come back to one or two matters which have already been touched upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that he has in his constituency schools which have been occupied during the whole period of the war. I have tried to get a school restored to its proper function for the past few years but it is occupied to this day. I wish it could be restored to its proper use, because it is not to the educational advantage of the children in the area that they should be scattered in halls in various parts of that little township. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the work undertaken by headmasters and teachers in connection with the feeding of school children. I hope he is going to view the matter from another angle. It is all very well for teachers to take an interest in this, but I hear from those who are actually doing the work that a very considerable amount of their time is taken up with duties which are not strictly theirs. It may be due to the exigencies of war, but the teachers have to take a bigger share in helping with the feeding of the children than was the case before. During the period of the war, even during the last two years, there has been a very considerable increase in the number of children who are being fed. A good part of the time of headmasters and teachers is still being taken up with this work, and I hope, if we are going to have an extension of school meals, we shall have it properly organised and persons who are capable of doing that sort of work engaged for it. It is a good thing for the teachers to be there while the children are fed, even though outsiders should be engaged for the work, but to ask them to undertake a very large part of it is asking too much of them. The teachers should be confined more to the work for which they are engaged, and the feeding should be done by women who are capable of doing that sort of work.
    I am pleased to see in the Estimates for this year an increase in the amount allocated to technical education. Technical education has been the Cinderella of education in Scotland, and I hope that in
    1100
    future more attention will be paid to its development by education authorities and the Scottish Education Department. We require more technical education now than we have had in bygone years. In bygone years we had certain trades that were looked upon as skilled trades, and boys had to serve an apprenticeship to enter them. After a boy had served his apprenticeship he came out a journeyman and a fully fledged craftsman. Those occupations still exist and training is still being given, but during the war inroads have been made into the type of training that we have known in the past. There are certain occupations where no apprenticeship is asked of those who enter. We have mining schools in various mining areas in Scotland, and my view is that the best use is not being made of them. Training for entering the mines will be far more important in the future than it has been in the past. When I entered the mines there was no need for technical education or anything of that kind. I went along with a skilled miner and was taught the trade.
    Conditions have now completely changed. We now have highly mechanised mines, and even the colliery companies recognise that boys who are to enter them require more training than they have received in the past. Before the war one of the colliery companies in my county, the Fife Coal Company, undertook the training of boys who wanted to enter their mines and they made it a condition of entering the mines that the boys went through a course of training. I am not surprised at that, because the Fife Coal Company is one of the most highly mechanised companies in Great Britain. One of their collieries is the last word in mechanisation. If that is to be the type of mine we are to have in the future, the boys require to be properly instructed before they enter them. It is not now so much a question of doing hard physical work as of having a knowledge of how to manage and handle machinery and of the dangers associated with the type of machinery used in the mines. I believe that the mining schools could do a great deal in preparing boys to enter the mines, especially the mines of Scotland. The mining schools in England are much ahead of those in Scotland, and I hope that the Department of Education will give more attention to them.

    1101
    We have been discussing another industry where no apprenticeship is asked. Anyone can enter the agricultural industry provided he is prepared to adapt himself to the work, just as a young man can enter the mines provided he is prepared to adapt himself to the conditions of the work. In that industry more technical education is required than has been needed up to now, and I hope that this question will receive the attention of the Scottish Education Department. A great deal more can be and ought to be done by our technical colleges and schools. A great deal more should be made of them than has been made up to now if we are to have efficient men in these industries. Unless we have efficiency, and unless we are to be able to increase our production, we shall not hold our own in the markets of the world. If we are to hold our own in the markets of the world, our technical colleges, mining schools and other institutions which prepare young men and women for their future avocations must not be starved or half-starved as they have been up to now. More money requires to be spent on them and a great deal more attention given to them.
    The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr) asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had ever observed how interested a boy was when he got some tools to work with. I believe that a great deal of the difficulty we have experienced recently in getting boys into the mines is due to the fact that they started at too old an age. They should have attended school in preparation for the work before they were called upon to enter the mines instead of having only three or four months' training. That is not sufficient to prepare boys for either mining or agriculture. These are the two most important industries, and I hope that the increase in the grant given this year for technical education will go towards bringing the technical schools, and particularly the mining schools, up to a higher state of efficiency than has been the case in the past.
    Major Lloyd: I think that most, if not all, Members of the Committee would agree that it is a tragedy that this vitally important discussion should have been confined to two short hours. However, I realise that we must make the best of a bad business and give others an adequate chance to
    1102
    speak. It does not matter that we have to sacrifice by omitting things that we should like to have said, but it does matter that full justice to this vitally important subject cannot be done in two hours, and I wish to protest with all the vigour that I can, against having to discuss it in that limited time. I presume that we shall never have another chance to discuss this immensely important subject until such time as the legislation which has been predicted is brought before us. Then we shall have an opportunity of threshing out that legislation to the full.
    I want to make some reference, in the very few minutes that are at my disposal, to the very cordial remarks made by my right hon. Friend about the Advisory Council. I am one of the humblest members of that Council, and I am sure that his words of congratulation and thanks for the work that has been done up to date will be enormously appreciated by my colleagues, who have deserved it a very great deal more than I have done myself. They have worked hard, and I think they will be delighted to know that the Secretary of State and his advisers are apparently satisfied with so many of their recommendations. One of the great achievements of the Advisory Council is that their conclusions and recommendations have, hitherto, been completely unanimous. That is not very easy on such a difficult subject, with so many controversial issues that might well arise on the far-reaching questions covered by the omnibus word "education." It is a remarkable achievement for a number of men and women, from every walk of life and from all political schools of thought, that they should be able to produce substantial reports with great unanimity and absolute harmony and good will. I can assure the Committee that that harmony and good will will unquestionably be continued until the work of the Advisory Committee has been concluded.
    To my mind, my right hon. Friend put his finger right on the major difficulty with which we have all to contend in looking ahead to the future of education in Scotland, and that is the immense difficulty of providing enough teachers. The question of buildings is immensely difficult in itself, yet sooner or later that will be solved; but the question of teachers is not merely a matter of numbers. I think it is a question of quality

    1103
    also. I have no doubt that we can produce, in time, 4,000 individuals, in trousers or skirts, who could be put into schools and called teachers, in addition to those who are doing the work at the present time, but what we need, and what everybody who is interested in Scotland knows that we need, is the highest possible quality. We spend enormous sums of money on education. The bulk of the sums goes in payments to the teachers in salaries. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that we should ensure quality.
    Therefore, short as we shall be in the years immediately succeeding the war, I would rather go short for a time, and delay these vital reforms in which I am as keen and as interested as any Member of the Committee, than rush into the teaching profession, men and women who may not have been properly trained or who may not be properly qualified, and who may not, above all, have the vocation which is almost as essential for the teaching profession as it is for the calling of the Church. Teaching is not a profession in the ordinary sense of the word; it is a vocation. It is not something which one does just to earn a salary, and a pension, and to rear a family, and if one is going into it only for those reasons one had better not go into it at all. We should do our very utmost to get the best possible types of teacher.
    I am interested in one or two subjects which my right hon. Friend, naturally, had not time to cover in his report. I would like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply, whether there will be time for me to have an answer on one or two further points I would like to raise. I am deeply interested, as I think most other Members of the Committee are, in the youth services, a new, war-time development -to a very large extent and one with immense potentialities. I have been following with the keenest interest the start of that great movement although I recognise that it is to some extent handicapped by war-time disabilities. I look to it for a very great future.
    I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that local authorities in Scotland, as a whole, are taking up that movement with real enthusiasm, and if there are local authorities who are
    1104
    not, will he do his utmost to stimulate and encourage them to take up this cause to the very best of their ability during the war, so that we may have an active and a live youth organisation in every county and area in Scotland? Then, when the war is over and labour difficulties and other disabilities of accommodation have been overcome, we may be able to go forward with this great movement for the education of our youth, upon the start of which Scotland is to be congratulated. I congratulate the organisers of the movement upon the enthusiasm with which it has been started.
    I am also particularly interested in the courses which have been started to train young people, in the building apprenticeship scheme. That is a scheme in which the Committee might well take the deepest interest, but why should it be confined to the building industry? It is true that in the immediate months and years after the war the most prior urgency will be for the training and improvement of those who are to work in the building industry, and so for many months ahead we should be trying to stimulate and interest our young people to enter the building industry. That is the major object of the scheme. I would like my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee how that scheme is going. Are the lads corning forward? Are they keen? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are everywhere supporting this venture so that, as and when opportunity occurs, boys may enter the building industry with some interest and knowledge of what they are going into, in order to help to solve the great housing problem, probably the greatest problem that Scotland will face in the post-war years?
    Another subject in which I am deeply interested and which has inevitably not been mentioned is education by film. That is a modern development and one of the things which inevitably move slowly in war-time. Probably, facilities are not as great for making documentary films, of educational value to children, as they were in peace-time, but something has been done, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could say a word as to whether anything more can be done than has already been achieved in connection with education by film. I know it would be appreciated by those who are particularly interested in education.

    1105
    One word more, on the subject of the curriculum. Oh, the curriculum needs an awful lot of reform and revising. It is too full of a lot of stuff which is largely lumber. I want to see it revitalised. I want to see more interest taken by those who administer our education in the opinions of those who have been thinking out reforms of the curriculum. It is so easy for the administrator to follow the line of least resistance, and never to move forward with new schools of thought. Today there are many societies and organisaions, and many minds who are thinking out reforms of the curriculum of a more practical character. That is where education as a whole has to move forward—the reform and revitalising of the curriculum and interesting boys and girls in the jobs they are doing so as to make them feel that there is something in life as a result of what they have been taught at school.
    That brings me to my final word and my last half minute. I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows well that nothing like enough money is being spent in Scotland upon research in education—nothing like. We have only a certain amount of money to spend, it is true, and much of it is earmarked for what would be considered essential services in education, but all who are interested in education unanimously agree that nothing like enough money is being spent on research. Any more that can be earmarked for research, or any encouragement that can be given to research and education and to new methods, ideas and developments, let it be given. I am sure that the whole of the Committee will agree that it could not be given to a better cause.
    Mr. Maxton: The Debate that has taken place so far fully justifies the protests that such a short time is being allotted to it. I myself have got past the stage when I enjoy oratorical sprinting. I like to meander along in the more leisurely fashion that was favoured by Socrates and the wise men of the past, rather than to proceed with the rush of modern times, which is the way in which the Scottish Grand Committee must proceed if a reasonable number of us are to get in and a reasonable number of points are to be raised. The hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) said a number of things that raised points which I would
    1106
    like to discuss with him. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr), who speaks so seldom but always raises something of interest, raised the question of the uncritical quality of the student who came to Glasgow University. I should have thought that Glasgow people were the most critical people in the whole of Great Britain. I never had the good fortune to be in his biological course, but I would ask him to consider this: that when I was an undergraduate we were told, if we wanted to do well in our examinations, to accept everything the professor said as being the absolute truth, and when we were answering questions to put down on paper precisely what he told us, not to put down any independent ideas—to have them if we liked but not to let him know that we had them or he would be on top of us. I would ask him to consider whether it was not that the students and undergraduates of Glasgow lacked the critical faculty but that they were too astute to let him see they had that aspect of their minds fully developed.
    I want to raise three points which have been forced on my attention. One was referred to by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). It is a shocking thing that while this House was discussing the English Education Bill, and while from the Government Front Bench and all quarters of the House there came the demand for making the avenues of education wide and free, with access for the poorest person in the land to the highest form of education, at that very point the Scottish Universities announced to the world that they were raising the fees in Scottish Universities in all faculties, except the medical faculty. I know that the Scottish Universities are autonomous, self-governing bodies, that their statutory position is defined in legislation, and that even Ministers have not the right to interfere with their internal affairs. I would like the Scottish Universities to be independent, self-governing autonomous bodies, but the State can only grant powers of that description if the bodies concerned are to operate with some regard to the broad trend of the public opinion of the country in which they are living.
    It was a gesture of derisive contempt to the whole of educational thought for the Scottish Universities to make that announcement to the world—that while the House was struggling to make access to a higher education easier, they were going

    1107
    to take steps to make it more difficult. I put questions on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman. He has no statutory rights of interference. I was passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no right of interference, no right to be consulted. I went to each of the three Members for the Scottish Universities; not one of them had been consulted, not one of them had been informed. They got their information about this, as I got it, from the columns of the Scottish daily Press. I think that is gross impertinence. Also, this other consideration has to be borne in mind; when we allow our universities to be self-governing autonomous bodies, that means that Glasgow University rules itself, St. Andrew's rules itself, Aberdeen rules itself and Edinburgh rules itself. What do we get here? Not four independent, self-governing bodies but a combine, a cartel, a selling price agreement by the four of them in combination. I cannot believe that the needs of St. Andrew's, for instance, financially are the same as the needs of Glasgow, nor do I believe that the needs of Aberdeen are the same as those of Edinburgh. This is like the Imperial Tobacco Company saying that whether you are at Land's End or John o' Groats you will pay 2s. 4d. for your Gold Flake. The Scottish universities are aping big business, saying, "Wherever you are, whether on the Borders or in the Orkneys or Shetlands, we, the great combine, say the price to be paid. No competition in university education." I do not think we can tolerate that.
    They will turn round and say, "Yes, but the poorer people can always get grants from the local education authority. Carnegie gives munificent sums to necessitous students." But not everybody, even in the ranks of the manual workers in Scotland, wants to plead poverty before they can get their sons or daughters to universities. The tradition of the Scottish Universities was such in the old days that the session was compressed into five and a half months of the year, a very compact university session. It was a tradition of the Scottish Universities that a fellow pulled himself through the university by doing that five and a half months' compressed study, and the other six and a half months he spent getting the wherewithal to enable him to have
    1108
    that five and a half months. That has all gone since the right hon. Gentleman and myself were at the university. I would say that it is 50 per cent. more difficult for a poor man, or the son of a poor man, to get through a Scotch University and acquire a degree. I do not want the Scottish Universities to be starved for finance, but I do say that they ought to have made approaches to the appropriate quarter to get the necessary finance from the coffers of the State, instead of going to those least able to defend themselves, the undergraduate population, and saying to them, "You are the people who are going to pay and make good any deficiencies there are in our coffers."
    That is one thing I want to say. The second thing is this. Several people have referred to the necessity of getting 4,000 extra teachers after the war. I want the right hon. Gentleman to look at what is happening now in the four training colleges for teachers, where the Minister of Labour is calling up girls who have already done a certain proportion of their period of training for teachers. I do not think that these girls are being taken into the Services now, but they are being shoved into all sorts of jobs of third-rate national importance. I understand that if girls could do about nine or 12 months' training, and start again with their training on the completion of their service, it would not be so bad, but to be taken when they have done just a fraction of their training, and turned to sweeping the floors in canteens, seems to be an awful waste of the national effort, particularly when there is such a shortage of teachers. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Minister of Labour if the time has not now arrived when girl students, at least, errtering the training colleges should be allowed to complete their courses.
    I want to refer to a matter in the locality which is represented by the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew, who will excuse me, I hope, for butting in, because it is the area of my own upbringing. My right hon. Friend knows that, during the year, there arose in Barrhead a serious dispute between the parents and the county council over the rearrangement of the school accommodation. The parents refused to accept the rearrangements which the county council imposed upon them, and for, I think, the best part of a month withheld their children from

    1109
    day-school attendance. The county council put the case into the hands of the judiciary, and the people were summoned for failure to educate their children. These were as decent citizens, as keen about the education of their youngsters, as you could find anywhere. The county education committee, looking at the statistics, said that it would be more economical to shift these children from one school to another school, in another part of the town. No consideration was given to the desires of the parents, the habits of the parents, or the traditions of the area—and remember that it is not only in the Etons and the Harrows that you have traditions: ordinary folk have their traditions—prejudices if you like—about the schools in their own neighbourhoods. The right hon. Gentleman knows this problem. It is the problem of the small borough in relation to the county authority. I know that, when the original legislation was passed, the right hon. Gentleman was as big a critic of it as anybody. The county authority has to find some method by which it can get the advantages of a general system of education by raising the maximum amount of local interest and local say in the way that the education is being carried an. That is all the time I have.
    Mr. McNeil: I wish to protest, also, against the mean procedure which thrusts Scottish education into two hours. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who had to confine himself sadly, and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who also, doubtless, will condense his remarks, have a partial responsibility in fixing the Business of this House. Is it suggested that if the right hon. Gentleman had said, "We want the Sitting extended," when some of us made representations from here, the Government would not have given it—especially, I hope when the Chief Whip sits for a Scottish seat? I want to support the protests which have been made about the raising of the university fees. I take a slightly different line from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I think that the universities have not hurried to raise their fees. They took four years to do it. I think also that they could show an extremely good case for increasing their revenue in some way. There are, as my hon. Friend knows, men and women from these universities who are loaned to
    1110
    Government Departments now at twice and three times the salaries they get from the Scottish universities. They will go back to the universities, because they are people with a keen sense of public duty, and zealous for education.
    I think that the Scottish universities have some case for increasing their revenue, but it is an empty and miserable fable to pretend that the right hon. Gentleman has no control over these universities—no one believes it. A considerable factor in the revenue of these universities and of others, is the contribution from the University Grants Committee. That is a deciding factor. I believe that the basis of the refusal to increase the contribution to the Scottish universities—of course, it is a complicated business—is that it can be claimed that, in some ways, the Scottish universities have been more favourably treated in regard to grants than the provincial universities. At the risk of being howled at, I am going to say that we have earned a title to more generous treatment. We send proportionately two of our boys and girls to universities for every English boy or girl who goes to these provincial universities. My hon. Friend looks at me rather hard—I am not making a case; I am just stating a fact. I am afraid that it is just a simple arithmetical fact; and, that being so, we are in a position to demand somewhat disproportionate treatment from the University Grants Committee. I hope that when the Government are talking about the extension of educational avenues, when my right hon. Friend concerns himself with the many problems which confront Scotland, we are not going to shut out any Scottish boy or girl from the training they so urgently need to make their contribution to Scotland.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) both concentrated on the poorest class, who are going to be shut out, or, if they get in at all, will do so by an increased contribution being put on the local authorities. Another class are affected—the lower middle class, who are just outside the Carnegie grant, and just above the level for grant from the local authorities. The increase in the fees is a very big factor in a family of, perhaps, two or three or four, who shape their ways, and, perhaps, semi-starve themselves, to see that one of their number gets, by this traditional Scottish

    1111
    way, an opportunity of going to a Scottish university. I hope that we shall not have any pushing aside of responsibility. It is primarily the concern of the Exchequer, and if my right hon. Friend was prepared to make representations to the Scottish universities, and say that their revenue difficulties would be met, there would be no need to raise fees.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I only wish there had been more time to deal with the many points raised, but I will take—[Interruption.] If I get many interventions, I will have even less chance of dealing with those points. The hon. Members for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and Greenock (Mr. McNeil) have dealt with something that directly affects the educational progress, in many instances, of those who are going to our universities—the question of fees. I want to make it perfectly clear—and I could not make it any more clear than the hon. Member for Bridgeton did—that, so far as the Scottish Office, the Scottish Education Department, and the Secretary of State are concerned, while we definitely have an interest, we have no powers whatever in the matter. We are entitled to take an interest in anything that affects the progress of the students in our universities, but the hon. Member for Bridgeton made it clear, and I entirely agree, that, by long tradition, the universities have enjoyed freedom in the management of their educational and financial affairs, and we have no power to interfere. I will give the Committee this guarantee. Tomorrow, or as early as possible, the Secretary of State will convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the views expressed in this Committee in connection with the raising of the fees. That is the guarantee and promise which I give on this particular point.
    Mr. Maxton: While I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot interfere, cannot he tell the four Scottish Universities what he thinks of this move?
    Mr. Westwood: I want it to be perfectly clear, and I think it is within the knowledge of the Committee, that we were never consulted in connection with this matter. Nobody seems to have been consulted, because these are ad hoc bodies, with power to do as they like.
    Mr. Barr: May I recall certain incidents of history in the Scottish universities, when there was a raising of the fees for the professions, and larger grants were given by the Government?
    Mr. Westwood: I am not going to enter into competition to prove that my knowledge about universities is greater than that of my hon. Friend, because I am perfectly sure that, in a competition of that kind, I would lose. His knowledge is greater than mine. All I am trying to make clear is that, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, by long tradition, the universities have enjoyed freedom in the management of their educational and financial affairs. Again, I give a guarantee to the Committee that, this matter having been raised, the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—after all, it is a question of finance—will be drawn to the views of this Committee to see if he can help in this particular problem.
    Many other points have been raised in this Debate. The hon. Member for Gorbals wanted to know if we could give any indication that any progress has been made in connection with education during past years. The hon. Member also raised the point of the use of our schools for A.R.P., military and fire service purposes. It is a fact that one of the casualties in the war happened to be education. I do not think that can be denied. We required premises for first-aid posts, and for the military, and so on, and it was really unfortunate that the best premises and those most suited for these purposes were, in the main, our school buildings, with the result that they were taken over by the local authorities and by the military, and lost to educational use. We have been, gradually, overcoming that difficulty. We have not completely surmounted the obstacle, yet I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that, to-day, 99.2 per cent. of the children in the Scottish schools are getting full-time education.
    Mr. Buchanan: Can the Minister say how many schools are still occupied?
    Mr. Westwood: Yes, I can give this figure to my hon. Friend. I will be willing, after this Debate, as I promised before, to communicate with hon. Members on any point with which I have not time to deal. I can give my hon. Friend

    1113
    comparative figures to show the progress we have made. The number of schools wholly occupied in December, 1942, was 74. The number wholly occupied in June, 1944, had been reduced to 62. The number partly occupied in December, 1942, was 271. The number partly occupied in June, 1944, had been reduced to 141. The number of schools wholly or partly occupied for non-educational purposes has decreased by 12 and 130 since December, 1942. This continued downward trend represents, I submit to the Committee, a substantial improvement, though not all that we desire, because, schools having been built for educational purposes, none of us will be satisfied until they are restored to their original use. There are now only three county education areas—Angus, Ross and Cromarty and Stirling—and two burghs—Aberdeen and Glasgow—in which the occupation of schools by other services is given as the reason for the failure to restore full time education.
    Mr. Buchanan: It shows that the problem exists.
    Mr. Westwood: But it also shows that we are trying to overcome the difficulties in the education of our children. It is a fact also that we are making real progress in connection with education, in that the secondary school roll is up by 1,773. Even our nursery school classes have increased during the year, the roll being up by 576. As I have already indicated, whole-time education is now being provided for 99.2 per cent. of our children, which is an improvement by 1.2 per cent. Half-time education is down by 1.2 to 8 per cent. of those on the roll. Incidentally, the number of exemptions granted, even in the midst of war, has actually decreased The permanent exemptions are down by 1,586. It would be of interest to the Committee, as evidence of educational progress, to point out that the number of senior leaving certificates is up by 247. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) on the question of improvement in the numbers taking technical education. This matter has been receiving the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and one of the remits to the Advisory Committee is to inquire into and report upon the improvement necessary with regard to technical education
    1114
    outwith the universities, having regard to the provision made for technical education in universities. We are now awaiting their report and recommendations as to what improvements should be made towards still further advances in technical education. It is of interest to note that under the course of technical subjects for the school leaving certificate there were 169 candidates this year as compared with 40 in the year 1939, that again being progress and improvement in technical education.
    A point was raised about the prevocational classes. These pre-vocational or pre-apprenticeship classes are not confined to the building industry. We recommend starting pre-apprenticeship classes in connection with the engineering industry and we are going to carry them to other spheres of industry because of the need for, and improvement in, technical education, which is necessary if we are to be in the forefront of the work that lies ahead of us. Another point was raised as to the exact position with regard to the pre-apprenticeship courses in the building industry. The scheme has been in operation for two years. It was set up in accordance with recommendations of a Committee appointed for the purpose of dealing with the intake into the building industry. They recommended that the education authorities should give encouragement to young persons to take advantage of pre-vocational education in the building industry. We have approximately 700 who have taken advantage of this pre-vocational course.
    Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the way local authorities have taken it up?
    Mr. Westwood: I am never satisfied with something that I am anxious to see made perfect, and we have not yet reached perfection. Eight authorities have taken advantage of the scheme and some are doing very well in regard to it. The bursaries that some are providing are really substantial. I take the case of Aberdeen, where they are providing bursaries under the scheme of £28 per annum; then there is Dundee, £36; Edinburgh, £30 plus travelling expenses; Glasgow, £15 plus travelling expenses; Inverness, for boys at home £20, and for those in lodgings £60; the county of Lanark, from £4 to £20 according to parents' needs; and in the county of Ayr the ordinary

    1115
    secondary bursary with a maximum of £7. I hope, in my desire to see success with these courses, all seven will try to emulate the best so as to get as large as possible an intake for these particular courses and that the other authorities who have not yet pulled their weight will now fall into line. We sent out a circular in which we really gave them a quota at which to aim, so that they would be able to get from 1,000 to 1,500 taking advantage of the pre-apprenticeship courses with a view to their being trained to enter the building industry. That was for the purpose of giving us at least 50,000 building trade apprentices trained for the building industry as far as Great Britain is concerned. The position is that approximately 700 in Scotland have now taken advantage of these schemes which are now established in eight centres.
    We are planning pre-apprenticeship courses for the engineering industry in five centres and also proposing a course of training for hotel management. If we are to have a proper tourist industry in Scotland we have to be prepared for that after the war. Special reference was made in connection with school meals and milk and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I hope that I shall live to have the honour of being able to announce at this Box that we are not merely going to provide meals. We have increased the number provided from 6.7 per cent., in three years, until now it is approximately 25 per cent. I hope to see the time when as part of the school curriculum there will be a well-balanced mid-day meal provided free, without the necessity for inquiries. The scale in connection with means is laid down by the local authority and not by the Department, and I know of no case that has come up for approval.
    I am sorry that I have not the time to deal with every point that has been raised but I will give a guarantee that on any points not dealt with—and we will go through HANSARD to-morrow—a proper and a full reply is sent in regard to the points raised in this Debate.
    Ordered:
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain McEwen.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ARMED FORCES, OVERSEAS (HOME TRANSFERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Mr. John Dugdale: I want to raise the question of soldiers' leave, including Scottish soldiers. I realise fully the difficulties that the Government are under in this connection, and I appreciate to the full the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on Thursday. I intend not to indulge in a large number of harrowing statements, and reading out letters from people—and I have had plenty of them from India and from other places abroad—but rather to concentrate on the practical aspect of the case and see if some step can be taken to improve the position as it is to-day. What is the position. I will quote from the statement of the right hon. Genteman of last Thursday. He said:
  "More recently, it has been possible to start bringing home those who had served abroad for between five and six years; the bulk of these have already returned. My right hon. Friend would naturally wish to improve on this. Indeed, a start has already been made with bringing home men with between four and a half and five years' service abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1944; Vol. 401, C. 794.]
  What does this mean? In short it means that the only people who have so far benefited from the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to bring men home have been regular soldiers, because very few of what I may call the amateur soldiers have served as long as this abroad. By all means let the regular soldiers be brought back, but I would submit that the claim of the amateur soldier is, if anything, higher than that of the regular soldier. The regular soldier knew he was liable to serve abroad as part of his profession, but the amateur soldier is in the Army only for the duration of the war, and he has not quite the same liability. If there is to be any discretion at all, the amateur soldier has, perhaps, a higher priority. Be that as it may, the regular soldier is, in fact, the only soldier who is being brought back to-day, with very few exceptions.
  Secondly, what is happening to these men and what sort of position are they in to-day? I would say first that they are undergoing very great emotional strain.

  1117
  I do not want to press that point further, although it is possible to speak at great length about the harrowing circumstances of men thousands of miles away from their families, men who have never seen——
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]
  Mr. Dugdale: —many of whom have never seen their children, or seen them only perhaps when they were a few months or a year old. Only those who have children know what it is to miss a child's younger years, when it is growing up, and to know that, when you come back, the child will be almost a stranger to you, let alone what the wife will be. Therefore, the first thing I would say is that they have emotional strain. Secondly, I would submit that many of these troops, particularly those in the i4th Army, are liable to sickness to an extent to which troops at home and in the European theatre are not liable. I was talking recently to somebody who had a letter from her husband in the R.A.M.C. in India. He said that he had met men who had served in West Africa, and who say that the climate in some of the places in which they are serving now in India is worse than the climate in West Africa. I am not competent to say—I have never been to either country—but I would submit that it is worthy of inquiry whether these men are not liable to become ridden with malaria, and to catch other diseases which one can get in those parts of the world. If they remain out for long periods, for, say, four or five years, they may become so full of malaria that they will not only be in an unfortunate position themselves but they may be of little use when it comes to fighting.
  So I would ask what is being done, what action can be taken now? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty of the lack of trained personnel. He instanced the R.A.F. and said the R.A.F. were in a very much easier position than the Army. I quite agree with him, in so far as jungle-trained troops are concerned. Quite obviously you cannot produce enough troops brilliantly trained
  1118
  for the jungle who have previously been sitting at Aldershot or on Salisbury Plain—though I would add in passing that I spoke not long ago to an English officer who had the unique experience of seeing jungle-trained American troops fighting against the Japanese at Guadalcanal and he said, much to my surprise, that the American troops and, indeed, the Australian troops picked up jungle warfare so quickly that they were already better than the Japanese at this kind of fighting, which is supposed to be particularly the province of the Japanese. Agreeing that it is difficult to produce jungle-trained troops quickly, however, what about the other people? The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "… the proportion of older and less fit men is larger in the Army and the hulk of these men must, of necessity, be retained at home and cannot be utilised as replacements overseas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 795.]
  Certainly they cannot be used to replace jungle-trained troops, but they can be used to replace large numbers of troops who are to-day serving in comparatively static positions, far away from the war zone, and who do not need any special training there.
  I pass now to the question of speed of travel. We were told that the difficulty was one of shortage of ships; we are now told that the difficulty is one of shortage of personnel. I would like to put this point, which may seem a comparatively small one, but which may be important to many. I have a letter here from an officer serving in the Middle East who says:
  "I would like to stress in regard to the Army that if troops are involved operationally in any way whatever leave on returning home is never given one moment's thought, but that if they are employed on non-operational work they cannot see why leave could not be granted at set periods. A British soldier cannot understand why he should be brought away from his unit or infantry battalion, away from his comrades, following his customary duty, to serve at an infantry base depot, awaiting three months for passage."
  If the difficulty is not one of transport I suggest that this period of two or three months at the base camp, awaiting departure, might conceivably be shortened.
  I come now to the more important question, a question which demands a certain frankness but one on which I think we must be frank. We are to-day sharing the burden of the war with our American

  1119
  Allies and we intend to share it to the full. We have said, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said—and I do not think for a moment that the Americans expect anything else at all; of course, we shall do nothing of the kind—that we shall continue the war to the end. But should we bear more than our share? American troops go back on leave after far shorter periods overseas than our troops. I ask whether it is not possible to say to the American people, "We are determined to bear our share, but at the same time are you not willing for us to shorten our period of service abroad for our troops down to something more like your level, even if it means that we have less serving abroad and even if it means more Americans must serve abroad?" If this were put to the American people—and they are a very fair people—they would understand that there is a case to be made out for shortening our period of service, even at the cost of a reduction of our troops——
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: What is the American length of service abroad?
  Mr. Dugdale: I understand that Americans are entitled to go home after two years' service, although I stand to be corrected.
  Sir C. Headlam: The hon. Member is not certain?
  Mr. Dugdale: What I have said can be borne out by the Financial Secretary, who can correct me if I am wrong. But, certainly, the period is considerably shorter than the four or five years' service which our troops have to do. I know that the Americans have been in the war for years—no one need tell me that—but the question is what they are entitled to when their times comes for leave——
  Mr. Bartle Bull: Does the hon. Member think that fuller discussion on his present line will help materially the relations between Britain and America? Has he considered that?
  Mr. Dugdale: I personally do not think that the Americans like too much "soft pedalling." I do not think they appreciate what is called English understatement. They like people to be frank
  1120
  and say what they think. I do not suggest that we should enter into an open fight with the American Government over this, but I think the Americans like plain speaking and speak plainly themselves and would not object a bit to a discussion on these lines.
  I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) in his place. I hope he will refer to the point that he raised of a guaranteed period of home service for all men when they come back. These men realise the difficulty. They know perfectly well that we are engaged in a struggle in which people have to make untold sacrifices, and they are willing to make them, but I think the position would be eased if my hon. Friend could make some statement that, when the European war comes to an end, the position will be reviewed. I do not suggest that he should state that every soldier in the Far East should be brought back and replaced by others, but there might be a statement that when the European war comes to an end the situation will be reviewed and the leave position considerably eased. It may be obvious to us here but it may not be obvious to some of these men, many of whom feel that they have been forgotten. I am referring not so much to the men fighting in the jungle in Burma. When they are fighting they do not think so much about it. I am referring to the men whom I can only describe as policemen in the forgotten countries—in Abyssinia, Palestine, Transjordania and Persia, scattered all over the world, not engaged in operational duties, who feel this long deprivation of home leave and feel that they are sometimes forgotten by us at home.
  I bring this matter forward in no spirit of antagonism to the War Office or to the Secretary of State. I do not think that he is happy about this. Of course he would like to bring them back if he could. But I feel that, the more this can be discussed in Parliament, the more these people will realise that we know what, they are suffering, and the trials that they are undergoing. And it is our duty to show them that, in spite of what they may feel, they are not forgotten men.
  Colonel Clarke: I happen to have first-hand information on this subject. I returned not long ago from the Middle East having gone out

  1121
  with a unit that went out about three years ago, and had at that time done two years and nine months abroad. There are certain people in the world to whom others come when in trouble—doctors, padres, and commanding officers—who sometimes see and hear a good deal more than other people about the troubles of the soldier or the civilian. I have listened to a great many tragic stories that have been associated with the long periods that men serve abroad, and are expected to serve abroad. Five years to the soldier really seems almost an infinity. He cannot see the end of it. The same thing applies to his belongings at home. That often produces a sense of irresponsibility, and the result is seen in two ways. There are cases of unfaithfulness at home, and there are cases where the man abroad goes astray, and you get an increase in venereal. It is no good blinking the fact. If the period was shorter, they would feel that it was worth while trying to keep faith, and you would have less of these things. Since I have come back I have been doing the work of the Families Association for my regiment. This morning I had a Letter from Sicily and in one battery there are five cases of divorce pending. Beyond that there are a great many cases in which the men have promised to forgive their wives and make things up. I do not say that all these unhappy married circumstances could be helped if the period were shorter, but I believe that a great many of them could be. While I know from my own experience of the difficulties of getting men home, I hope everything will be done to try and shorten the period. If it is not feasible to do it immediately, I hope that some extension of compassionate leave might be made. At present compassionate leave is only allowed for a very limited range of causes, and some of the things I have mentioned are not among them. These broken marriages will go on a long time after the war, and if they can be avoided it will make a lot of difference not only to the men's lives afterwards, but to everybody concerned. I apologise for speaking so long, but I felt that unless I said something in this Debate I should not be keeping faith with a great many men who have given me their confidences and who, I feel, should be made vocal if possible.
  Major Nield: In a very few sentences I wish to add my appeal for
  1122
  a careful consideration of the position in regard to the period of service overseas. It is a very human problem from two points of view. In the first place, one knows from experience that men who have been separated from their wives and families for years feel that they are forgotten. In the second place, there is a resentment against the inequalities existing in the three Services. I would mention but three places. The Middle East is now far from any theatre of operations. So far as India and the South-East Asia Command are concerned, I hope the Government will bear in mind the difficult and trying climatic conditions in which the men have to be and to fight. One must be constructive in these matters, for I know full well that my right hon. Friend appreciates the difficulties of the situation. The suggestion I venture to make is that the question of exchanges should be closely considered. The Secretary of State for War has informed the House that he is doing his best in this direction, but with the opening of the Mediterranean and improved conditions generally I hope he will be able to effect further exchanges in the near future.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would like to say how much I agree with what has been said by other hon. Members in this Debate. Like them, I have had a number of letters from constituents in the Middle East, some of them very pathetic. It is difficult to explain to them, at that distance, just why they cannot be treated as well as men in the R.A.F. and the Navy. It is obvious that they follow the Debates in this House, for one of them sent me a reply of the Secretary of State for Air in which he said he had to look alter his personnel. The assumption in the letter was that the War Office have not the same regard for the men under their care. The suggestion I would like to make is that men in the East and Far East should be given the facts. They should be told that it is difficult to bring them home, and that the wish is there but that events are against as much being done as otherwise would be. If they could be assured that at the earliest possible moment they would be brought back they would feel that some period was being put to their stay out there Although difficulties may be insurmountable at the moment, as soon as the armistice comes they should have the assurance that they

  1123
  will be brought back before those who have not been out there so long or who are young and who have perhaps not such a desire as the older and married men to return to their families.
  Major C. S. Taylor: I agree with all that has been said in this Debate. The time remaining is very short, so there is only one point which I must make. It is to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is any guaranteed minimum period of home service for these men, even if they have been overseas for five years, which they can get after that five years overseas? Some hon. Members know of cases of men who have been brought back after a period of five years overseas, who have been given a fortnight's or three weeks' home service in this country—[An HON. MEMBER: "Leave"]—Yes, or leave, and then they have been sent off overseas again. That is the whole crux of the matter. If we say that men must be overseas for five years before they can come back for home service or home leave, and after a fortnight they are to be sent overseas again, that will destroy the whole principle of reducing their service to four or three years, or whatever it may be.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am sure that my hon. Friend who raised this matter will appreciate that I can add very little to the statement that was made on another occasion by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I will try to deal with all the points that have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend and other speakers if I have time, but in any case I will see that they are taken note of by the War Office. In fairness to the War Office I should say that the qualifying period, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, has been brought down to its present figure of five years from seven years. So far as my advisers know there is no maximum period of foreign service for those serving with the American Army, but I am not in a position to be dogmatic about it.
  It is the intention of the Government to reduce this period of five years, when it can be managed. Already a certain number of men who have served between four-and-a-half and five years overseas
  1124
  have been returned. Unfortunately, the position will get more rather than less difficult, because we shall shortly have to take into account the very large number of men who have been sent overseas after the outbreak of the war. Nevertheless, it is hoped that all officers and men who qualify up to the end of October, 1944, will be returned as soon as they finish their five years, unless, of course, they have volunteered to remain overseas.
  Reference has been made to the disparity between the period of overseas service with the Royal Air Force as against that of the Army, but hon. Members must take into consideration that the factor which makes the position much easier in the Royal Air Force is that the proportion of the Army serving overseas is very much larger than the proportion of the Royal Air Force stationed abroad. To bring the Army immediately to the same footing as the Royal Air Force it would be necessary to send so large a number of officers and men back to this country as to be quite impracticable for operational reasons. To lengthen the Royal Air Force tour of duty, in order to achieve parity, would not enable the Army tour of duty to be reduced, so my submission is that it would do no good to anybody.
  It is the intention to maintain at least the five year period and to reduce it, if it is at all practicable to do so. From the evidence available, it appears that most men want to have some firm information upon which they can make their personal arrangements, and would probably prefer a definite five years to an uncertain chance of returning after a slightly shorter period.
  It is appreciated that great importance is attached by serving soldiers to the maintenance of equality between the various overseas stations. Every effort is being made to achieve this, but temporary variations as between different overseas Commands are unavoidable. It must be remembered that every available man in the Army has to be used to reinforce the troops engaged in active operations abroad. This must be the first priority, and is essential if we are to bring about an early ending of the war. This means there are fewer troops available for exchange schemes.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) raised the

  1125
  question of the period that a returned soldier is allowed to remain in this country before he is sent abroad again. The position is that at the present time the period is three months. It was six months but it has been reduced to three months. It is the intention if possible that the reduction should only apply to personnel being sent to North West Europe. Moreover, such personnel are placed at the bottom of the roster for overseas duty, and therefore do not go overseas until other personnel with longer home service have done so. This means they have a reasonable expectation of being at home longer than three months. I do not agree with my hon. Friend—I appreciate his point—when he refers to the fact that the great majority of the soldiers who have been returned from overseas are Regulars. I do not think we ought to make any invidious distinction between the Regular and non-Regular. In any event we are operating on the basis of length of service abroad. We cannot work the scheme if we are going to make differentiations. It might interest the House to know that the total number of all ranks who have been returned to the United Kingdom under this exchange scheme since it started last autumn is 26,000. Of this total about 11,000 have come from India, 14,000 from the Mediterranean—Italy, North Africa and the Middle East—and the balance from other overseas stations.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: Most of them are back again.
  Mr. Henderson: No. This is entirely apart from the return of formations. These are individuals returned on the basis of length of service overseas. It does not include returns for operational reasons. May I say, in conclusion, that this problem obviously gives considerable concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and everyone who is connected with the problem is only too anxious to reduce the period of overseas duty. While I cannot give an assurance that at the end of the war in Europe the position will be reviewed I can go perhaps even better than that and say that at the present time and hereafter the position will be constantly reviewed, it will be reviewed the whole time, and in so far as it is possible for us to reduce the terms of overseas service more than we have done in the last few months, when we have reduced it, as I have said, from seven years to five years, we shall be only too glad to do so. I am afraid that is as far as I can go. Time will not permit me to deal with the other points, except the only other point that the special case where men were retained in a base camp for three months, was due to the absence of shipping facilities at the time. I very much doubt if that applies at the present date.
  It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Rubber Teats
  Rubber Teats
  Imported Raw Materials (Post-War Needs)
  Imported Raw Materials (Post-War Needs)
  Coal (Post-War Export Trade)
  Coal (Post-War Export Trade)
BRITISH ARMY
  Officers' Bank Balances
  Officers' Bank Balances
  Danger Money (Income Tax)
  Danger Money (Income Tax)
  ROAD SPEEDS (SERVICE DRIVERS)
  ROAD SPEEDS (SERVICE DRIVERS)
  "SALUTE THE SOLDIER" WEEKS
  "SALUTE THE SOLDIER" WEEKS
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE
  CHINA (BRITISH MISSION)
  CHINA (BRITISH MISSION)
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Smallpox (Diagnosis)
  Smallpox (Diagnosis)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  PRISONERS (INSANITY)
  PRISONERS (INSANITY)
  Tea Ration
  Tea Ration
  Cheese Ration (Agricultural Workers)
  Cheese Ration (Agricultural Workers)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Home Produced Meat
  Home Produced Meat
  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (EXPERIMENT)
  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (EXPERIMENT)
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Traffic Reductions
  Passenger Traffic Reductions
  Coal Traffic
  Coal Traffic
  Freight Traffic (Coal Consumption)
  Freight Traffic (Coal Consumption)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT)
  ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS, ITALY (DAMAGE)
  ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS, ITALY (DAMAGE)
  N.A.A.F.I. (SURPLUS STORES)
  N.A.A.F.I. (SURPLUS STORES)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (MEDICAL GRADINGS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (MEDICAL GRADINGS)
  OPERATIONS, FRANCE (CASUALTIES)
  OPERATIONS, FRANCE (CASUALTIES)
  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (DISTRICT HEATING SCHEMES)
  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (DISTRICT HEATING SCHEMES)
  MEN AND WOMEN WORKERS
  MEN AND WOMEN WORKERS

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
LAW OFFICERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read and 1a, to be printed.
AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a, (according to Order), and committed.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Bill which I invite your Lordships to consider this afternoon has already travelled through another place and reaches your Lordships' House substantially in the form in which it was introduced. I think I can rightly say that this, measure is a further indication of the reconstruction plans which His Majesty's Government are preparing or have prepared but it cannot, of course,
610
come into operation until after the end of the war. The Bill covers both the provision of piped water in rural areas and the extension of sewerage facilities which are consequential upon the greatly increased use of water. Your Lordships will have noticed that this Bill comes before Parliament in advance of the main Bill which it is the Government's intention to introduce, but the passage of this measure will, of course, leave your Lordships perfectly free to debate the future Bill, with the assurance that the provision of facilities for piped water in rural areas after the war has been specially provided for.
The principal object of this measure is to enable my right honourable friend the Minister of Health to make financial contributions in England and Wales for the provision of water supply and sewerage in rural areas. Although as I have just stated the works cannot be started until the end of hostilities in Europe, there will be nothing to stop local authorities from beginning now to formulate their plans as far as their staffs allow and they will have the assurance that they need not be deterred by any feeling that they cannot afford it. Indeed it is one of the principal objects of the Bill that local authorities should begin to prepare now. I think it is only right and proper that I should remind your Lordships, if reminder is necessary, that all measures passed by Parliament for reconstruction purposes cost money and in our effort to abolish the parish pump—or perhaps I should say to prime the parish pump—we are authorizing my right honourable friend to spend a sum of £15,000,000 in England and Wales. But that sum only accounts for the expenditure which will be borne by the Exchequer, for under the second clause of the Bill county councils will be called upon to make contributions towards the expenses of any scheme in cases where a promise of financial assistance has been given by my right honourable friend. The expenditure entailed under that head will naturally fall upon the county ratepayers.
But it should not be thought that by making that remark I am in any way bemoaning the expenditure of money for this scheme, for, on the contrary, any noble Lord who is acquainted with rural areas will appreciate the urgent necessity in many cases—and I need not deal with any of them now—for the provision of

611
piped water in particular areas and particular localities. Of course, the starting point of expenditure will be borne by the authority upon whom the statutory duty of providing water rests, and the consumers will bear their share of water charges. Any assistance or grant will be assessed upon the financial position of the authority and upon the merits of the scheme. It will be seen therefore that His Majesty's Government will assist by grants in aid to rural authorities who would otherwise be faced with the cost of extensions of piped water and sewerage well beyond what the ratepayers and the consumers could reasonably be expected to bear. Every encouragement will be given to local authorities to plan their extensions of mains so as to fit in with the needs of agriculture so far as is practicable, and my right honourable friend intends to maintain close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture who are extending their own schemes for the provision of water for land, farms and farm buildings.
Perhaps I might now turn to deal with one or two clauses in the Bill. I have probably explained adequately the purpose and intention of the first two clauses. Clause 3 places a more definite and extended obligation upon local authorities and joint boards as regards the provision of water supplies. The House will notice that it does not enlarge their powers because my right honourable friend does not think that that is required. Clause 5 of the Bill will have effect in rural areas, where the local authority does not itself supply water but where there is a statutory water authority operating under a local Act which incorporates Section thirty-five of the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847 or some modification of it. Under that Act, owners and occupiers can in such cases demand a supply of water for domestic purposes from the undertaker if the aggregate amount of the annual water rates payable in respect of their premises is not less than a prescribed fraction of the expense of providing and laying the necessary mains, and further, if they agree with the undertakers to take a supply of water for not less than a period of three years. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 places an obligation upon water undertakers to accept a guarantee of sufficient income if given by a local authority, who therefore step into the position which
612
was formerly occupied by the owners and occupiers. At present, the local authority can give this guarantee, but, in point of fact, the undertaker is not bound in any way to accept it. I think the House will agree that subsection (2) of Clause 5 fills a very obvious gap.
The only other clause to which I would invite your Lordships' attention is Clause 7, which applies this measure to Scotland with certain modifications. Noble Lords will observe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is authorized under that clause to spend a sum of £6,375,000 for practically the same purposes for which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is authorized to spend money in this country. With those few introductory remarks I cordially commend this Bill to your Lordships, and move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I would say that we cordially support the Bill which the noble Earl has introduced. At the same time we recognize, as I should think that he does, that in the long run this measure will not be adequate to meet the full needs of rural England. Notwithstanding that, it will be a most valuable contribution towards meeting those needs, which are exceedingly urgent in some districts. There are two or three comments which are material and should be made. It has become especially manifest during the war, owing to the increased consumption of milk, which we all sincerely hope will continue and even increase, that in a good many rural areas there is a considerable deficiency in the supply of water to farms. Large numbers of schemes have been helped during the war by the Ministry, but they represent only a small fraction of the cases which require adequate supplies of water.
I am a little disappointed, therefore, that these provisions have not been "married up" with the proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture, which we are promised in a separate measure. So far as this Bill goes, it places a duty on the local authorities In this respect I think that what the noble Earl said requires a little amendment. This Bill enlarges the scope of their duties, but I do not think that it enlarges their powers. It imposes

613
the duty on every rural authority to provide pipes affording a supply of water to such points as will enable houses or schools to be connected thereto at a reasonable cost. That is a very important and welcome extension of the duties of those authorities, but I hope that your Lordships will take note of the fact that we shall look for a considerable drive in the administration of this Bill if it is to be made as efficient and useful as we should all like it to be, because these words are qualified by the conditions that such schemes must be practicable and such as can be carried out at a reasonable cost.
Everything will turn on what is meant by "practicable" and by "a reasonable cost." I myself have first-hand experience of orders made in war-time which are qualified by the term "reasonable." We stand in constant apprehension of the interpretation which the Department which the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, represents in this House will place upon the word "reasonable," because it depends on how much a thing is going to cost, what it is going to be made of, how urgently it is required and all sorts of other considerations. You have to ask yourself a large number of questions, with some apprehension, before being bold enough to put a scheme forward to the Department for approval. The word "reasonable" is a very elastic term. What I think that we ought to recognize is that according to the very valuable White Paper, A National Water Policy, which was presented to Parliament some time ago, fifteen times as much water is available as the community requires. The Lord sends an abundance of rain in some parts of this country, and there is fifteen times as much water available as will be needed for industrial and domestic purposes.
I should like the word "reasonable" to be understood to mean that water shall be supplied to groups of houses or villages unless there is some very substantial reason to the contrary. Every village and every school and every group of houses should have an adequate water supply, and I do not want the supply of water to them to be qualified by such expressions as "practicable" or "reasonable," which might, and I am afraid will, in many cases curtail the activities of the local authorities. I can quite appreciate
614
some apostles of economy on local authorities making great play with the word "reasonable," and raising all manner of objections to any sort of scheme, however urgently it might be required. Therefore, while I know that we shall not seek to remove these words, and while I am very doubtful of my ability to suggest offhand a better formula, we ought to understand that every village, every collection of houses, every school and every farm which needs a water supply ought to have an adequate supply. There is plenty of water; it is only a question of making adequate arrangements to see that it is supplied.
I do not wish to underrate what is being suggested here, but I hope your Lordships will not be content to think that £15,000,000 will meet the bill. Nothing of the sort. If we were to add another nought at the end it might be within measurable distance of what the country needs, but certainly £15,000,000 is not enough. Moreover, I should like the noble Earl to tell us how this scheme fits in with the very courageous and farsighted proposals which are set out in this excellent White Paper, A National Water Policy. We are there told, and very truly, about many of the existing difficulties—the multiplicity of authorities, the gaps between authorities, leaving districts with inadequate supplies, the overlapping of authorities, the imperfect powers of the Ministry or other governing authorities, and the many other obstacles to the achievement of a proper national policy. I am a little apprehensive that in the development of this proposal it will be made more difficult for the Minister to bring about that amalgamation of areas and amalgamation of supply which the White Paper tells us, and obviously with truth, are urgently required; because, as this plan develops, the different authorities will enlarge their schemes and will each have an increased vested interest and pride in their own scheme, and it will be more difficult than before, I think, to bring about that amalgamation and unification of authority which the White Paper tells us will be required. To that extent I am afraid that, unless it is very skilfully administered, this Bill may perhaps intensify those difficulties in the course of time.
It all depends on how long we have to wait before this much more ambitious project is put into definite shape. There

615
was an excellent discussion in your Lordships' House some time ago, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, which unfortunately I was not able to attend, and which dealt with this scheme. I should like to say that I am sure that it is worthy of much more consideration than it has hitherto received. Finally, may I emphasize the urgency of extending this scheme for the benefit of agriculture? All that the authority does in the Bill is to bring the water to a point and then the inhabitants or owners of the houses or schools or whatever it may be in the vicinity will, of course, have to pay the costs of putting in the supply to the premises. I am not very satisfied with that, because we know that in many of these country areas the cost of laying a pipe or pipes across fields or along country lanes is sometimes quite prohibitive. That difficulty will surely have to be met, because we cannot expect isolated groups of buildings, often half a mile away in fields, which may be farms producing a large quantity of milk and urgently requiring supplies of water, to be able to bear the cost of taking the pipes a great distance along those roads or across those fields. That difficulty, I should hope, will be met when we see the proposals of the Minister of Agriculture, but until it is met we shall not be able to assure the people of this country of those adequate supplies of milk which are so exceedingly necessary. Nevertheless, I know that this particular difficulty is in the mind of the Ministry and I hope that the forthcoming proposals will provide for it. Meanwhile we are glad to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am a warm supporter of this Bill personally, because I live in a district in Sussex where the actual difficulty has arisen which this Bill is designed to meet. We have a rather scattered population with no general supply of water but each of the houses or cottages is supplied by a small well, never a very deep well, and often, I should imagine, a purely surface well. That is a situation which I am quite certain from every point of view is as bad as it can be. The actual danger to health is considerable, because surface wells are always subject to contamination of some kind or another. But, quite apart from that, there is the great want of water which from time to time takes
616
place and, as your Lordships know, has been very acute in the earlier part of this year. I feel very strongly that a simple measure like this to meet that immediate difficulty is essential. Indeed, I rise mainly for the purpose of urging the Government not to allow that essential object of their policy to be postponed by the consideration of anything else. It is quite true that this Bill is confined entirely to water supply and sewerage, and in the White Paper which accompanies the Bill there is what my noble friend Lord Addison has been referring to—the larger policy for a general survey of water. I do not want to say a word against that: that may be a very admirable plan. I observe the very considerable amount of machinery which is contemplated—a central board, central advisory boards and regional advisory boards, research boards, water surveys, and so on. That, I dare say, is quite necessary for the larger policy, but it fills me with a little anxiety lest these designs should be allowed to precede the meeting of the really urgent need of supplying the rural parishes with water. And that seems to me to be the most dangerous thing that could take place.
In that connexion I notice what seems to me to be one small omission from this Bill. The Bill is designed to leave the initiative in the hands of the local authority. I think that is quite right and wise. But then in Clause 3, which would seem to be a very important clause, there is a provision regarding what the local authority are to do. They are to provide a piped supply of wholesome water, and they are to bring the pipes sufficiently near to the consumers to enable them to use the water. That is all quite right and very proper. Then it goes on with a proposal, which personally I very much welcome, to give to the Ministry of Health the power to see that these objects are carried out; and it they are not carried out then to have an inquiry into the subject and make an order if necessary for the local authority to do them. Looking at it from the point of view of the water consumer, as far as I am concerned that is quite right. But there is nothing about delay. What is contemplated is a refusal or an omission by the local authority to carry out their duties under the Bill. I should be very glad if the Government could see their way to put three or four words into

617
that clause to make it also the duty of of the local authority to do all these things "as soon as practicable." Then there would still be an appeal to the Minister if there was anything like a delay.
I do not want to say a word in criticism of the local authorities. They have got difficult jobs to do, and they do them on the whole very well. But at the same time, like all deliberative bodies, they are subject to individuals whose one object is to prevent something being done. With a large policy on the horizon it seems to me that there is a very great possibility of delay or what, in some departments of the Legislature of this country, might perhaps be called obstruction, thereby preventing this very wholesome and admirable project being put into force. If some such words as I suggest could be inserted, then it would be always possible to go to the Ministry if there was anything in the nature of obstruction, and to say, "Well, these people may say that they are going to do their duty, but they are not doing it, and we ask you to take action to see that they do do their duty."
I really do not desire to say anything more about this Bill. I think this is a very important matter. The condition of the rural water supplies is a great scandal at this moment, particularly in view of our experience of the enormous benefit to the health of the community that a good water supply affords. In the White Paper it is pointed out that water-borne diseases have almost ceased to exist in the great towns because of the excellent water supply. Things like cholera and typhoid, instead of being a very great danger to human life and happiness, have become almost negligible. There is no such safeguard in the rural parishes. The time is overdue when that ought to be corrected, and I personally hope that this Bill will be passed with the greatest rapidity and the greatest energy.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I must apologize for addressing the House on this most important Bill without having listened—through circumstances beyond my control—to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced it on behalf of the Government. I warmly welcome the Bill but, if I may say so, with an inquiring mind. It is obviously the first instalment
618
of a much larger scheme which is foreshadowed in the White Paper, about which we had a short discussion a month ago. We are told that the water falling from the clouds and collecting in our springs and water courses is more than adequate to provide all the requirements of town and country, including apparently not merely water for drinking purposes and for sewage disposal but for all the amenities which we as an up-to-date civilized community now enjoy. But, speaking quite frankly and speaking as a countryman, I think it cannot be denied that the towns have in the past profited at the expense of the countryside and its inhabitants in this matter of water supply, as indeed in many other matters.
In many rural areas, thanks to the domestic amenities that urban communities enjoy in their catchment areas, you have the strange paradox of water-logged land with a very urgent and increasing requirement of drainage and, at the same time, water-starved villages. I hope this Bill may do something to end that strange paradox. In passing, I should like to say, as regards the pollution of the water courses, rivers and streams, it is surely the national love of angling, and the pressure exercised from time to time to keep our rivers and streams as pure as possible for the sake of the fish, that has been largely responsible for our enjoyment in the rural areas of the country of as pure a water supply as we have at the present time.
I want to put to the noble Earl certain questions of which I have given him previous notice. Bearing in mind that, admittedly, we are dealing here in piecemeal fashion with what is going to be a very large national scheme of water supply, I should like to ask whether there should not be a complete national, or at least regional survey of water supplies and water requirements before the needs of particular localities are catered for. Failing that, should there not be in each catchment area a comprehensive survey, both of essential water requirements and of the sources of water supply and their average normal gallonage of water, before either private persons or the local sanitary authority can put in hand the execution of any scheme for supplying the local community, as for instance a particular village, with water? Thirdly, if the water is to be used for sewerage purposes, the supply, I submit, must be sufficient to

619
enable water closets to replace earth closets in every dwelling-house in the area unless—and it is a big and important proviso—an efficient septic system of sewage disposal is substituted and approved by the Minister.
I am rather inquisitive to know whether, as provided by this Bill, a sewerage system ought to be a condition precedent to a supply of water in connexion with the disposal of sewage. I cannot help reminding your Lordships that if there is going to be a large increase of water closets up and down the country—and incidentally as is found by experience, a considerable waste of water in carrying off that sewage—there is going to be a great and increasing lack of very valuable fertilizing material for which no chemical dressings are a complete substitute. If I am right in that—and it is difficult to controvert—ought there not to be a premium put upon septic tank disposal of sewage rather than a premium put upon water closets with their effluents in substitution for earth closets, with the very large quantity of additional water which would be required in order to operate them?
The next point I wish to ask about is this. The county councils come, apparently very inappropriately, into the picture. In the rural areas the local sanitary authority is—in most cases—the rural district council. If the rural district council submit an inadequate or unprepared scheme, of if they do not act under the instructions of the Ministry of Health or its local or regional representatives, apparently the county council come into the picture—whether as a default authority or not is not quite clear from the Bill. What I am going to suggest is that the council of a county and even the councils of several counties, acting as a joint water authority, are not really the best bodies to deal with such a position. After all, neither a county nor a group of counties is conterminous with the catchment area. It is the catchment area, I submit, which should be regarded as the unit for the supply of water within that area and, to some extent, for the disposal of it.
It is not quite clear from the Bill to what extent the river boards, as the successors of the catchment boards, come into the picture as controlling authorities. If they do not, there is going to be very serious overlapping in regard to their
620
particular functions. I think I am right in saying that surface water may not now be tapped in one watershed to be discharged into a catchment area that is fed from another source. But this does not apply to underground sources of supply and if it does not apply to underground sources of supply surely there ought to be some impediment to or restriction upon the competitive boring for water which is going on at the present time in many localities. Largely arising out of the recent drought many local authorities are boring for water and hoping to obtain as a result of that boring at any rate a temporary supply. Surely there ought to be some control of this process, either by the Government or by the county authoririties, if the water is going to be available not merely for the particular village in which such boring takes place or the neighbourhood of such a village but for the benefit of the whole of the region that ought to be fed from that particular supply.
I want to mention only two other matters. Sewage is not, I submit, the only source of water pollution. Oil and mineral grease surely should not he discharged from any premises, whether it be from a factory or a cottage. Those of us who use our eyes are all aware that there is a considerable amount of oil and grease collected to-day on river banks, piers and other structures, thus indicating the large amount of oil and grease that there is in many of our water courses as well as on our coasts. Surely some provision ought to be made for that oil and grease to be intercepted so as not to interfere with a pure water supply.
As for the requirements of cattle, I understand—I do not know whether I am right, and the noble Earl may have mentioned this—that the amount of water reckoned as necessary for each individual human being per day is from thirty to forty gallons. I believe the text books say thirty gallons but the experience of most rural district councils is that forty gallons is a fair consumption per head. I understand that in the United States the consumption per head is sometimes up to one hundred gallons. But, however that may be, the requirements of cattle are obviously much greater than the requirements per human unit if a pure milk supply is to be procured. I want to be quite certain that that is taken fully into account by the framers of this Bill.

621
If it is possible to give an answer—and I do not say it is—what is the estimated per caput consumption of dairy cattle, and are the mains that are laid going to be of sufficient diameter to carry the water that will be required for stock drinking purposes, milk cooling and other purposes upon our dairy farms? If the amount is very considerable, as I suggest in the public interest it should be on dairy farms, what is likely to be the rate charged upon dairy farmers for the supply of water for their cattle? If it is relatively excessive, I should suggest it ought to be on a lower rate than that required for human beings. If not it may in some cases make a dairy holding an uneconomic proposition.
With those words I welcome the Bill, but having presided over a Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales, when all these matters were in their inception and under consideration in 1929, I suggest that in carrying into effect the provisions of this Bill we take a long view and be extremely careful that we do not in any way interfere with the larger scheme which may be necessary both for town and country later on.
LORD BINGLEY: My Lords, I agree with the general line of criticism that this Bill does not carry out the larger scheme which is envisaged in the White Paper, but I must say that the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down fills me with consternation if he really is expecting that we shall wait until the whole of that very elaborate scheme is put into effect before we can get any improvement in a very deficient rural water supply. I think the danger of delay is something that would appal most of us who for so long have been asking for some improvement in this direction. Nor do I quite agree with the criticism of Lord Addison about the inadequacy of the money. It is true that £15,000,000 eventually may not be enough, but after all it will be a beginning. It is something to have got £15,000,000. Some years ago we did not get £1,000,000 and now it is £15,000,000. If the policy is successful and the country is sufficiently pleased it can ask for more and more will be found. At this stage I think it is a little ungenerous to complain that more has not been given immediately. The view I take is that the Government have certainly laid an egg. They must not cackle
622
too loudly about it. While they may cackle a little they must not forget that this is only a beginning. It is of course a useful beginning and those living in rural areas will be very grateful for it. But it is not the end and I only hope the bigger scheme that is envisaged in the White Paper will not be forgotten when once this Bill has been, as I hope it will be, passed through Parliament.
This is only the advance guard of the water policy set out in the White Paper. I am afraid the machinery in the Bill already tends to show that there may be considerable delay in carrying out even this instalment of the water policy. I do not quite like the prospects of delay that exist in the various arrangements that have to be made between the local authorities and the Ministry of Health. I do not like to see everything having to go through that bottleneck of the Ministry of Health, which has already so many other urgent problems to deal with, and which in times past has not been unduly careful about our need for water in rural districts. I am afraid it is going to be a slow process and I should like to see it speeded up. I should like to see at an early stage some delegation of power from the try of Health to regional or local authorities representing various areas. By this means I think something rather more expeditious could be found that would do away with the possibility of constant delay as a consequence of various conflicting authorities coming to the Ministry of Health and going backwards and forwards to the Ministry, which is the process that, it seems to me, is involved in this Bill. I hope therefore the Government will not leave this matter where it is but at the earliest possible moment deal with the present chaos of water undertakings which has been alluded to and which I need not any more stress.
Certainly there are things which can be got on with now. There is very great need for comprehensive maps showing what the possibilities of local supplies may be in various areas. There is also great need, as other noble Lords have suggested, for a continuance of the improvement in the general survey of our water supplies. It is true we cannot deal with this question satisfactorily until we know exactly what we have to deal with. Experts tell us with a light heart that there are ample supplies, but unless you have the supplies properly distributed you will

623
not get the result desired. I should like to see the survey more completely carried out so that we may know more exactly than we do now what the actual possibilities are and what we can do to improve the distribution. There must be of course some control of supplies by the Government; that is obvious; but I do hope that in exercising that control they will remember the advisability of delegating rather more than this Bill does to local areas, because local knowledge is after all the thing that is very necessary in these matters. The thing will have to go through the bottleneck of the Ministry of Health and that means delay, so that I am afraid we shall not for a long time get the supplies needed. It is not fair to complain that we cannot get the full scheme at this moment, because this is war-time and it would involve a very large operation. While I am very grateful to the Government, as I am sure everybody in rural areas will be grateful, for this instalment, I hope the Government will remember that this is only the beginning and that we expect the full measure as soon as they are in a position to carry it through.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, like everybody else who has studied the question I am very grateful for this Bill and the observations I am going to make will be chiefly on the lines of approval, with a suggestion or two as to things that can be done. This much must be admitted. This Bill, as I think everybody knows, will not result in every house in rural districts being supplied with tapped water. The proviso to Clause 3 which has been already mentioned shows that quite clearly. The noble Lord who introduced the White Paper here some little time ago gave us an example of what he thought would be unreasonable. He thought it would be unreasonable to supply water by pipe to a house at an expense which was in excess of the cost of the house. That would be the fact in the case of a number of rather remote dwellings, and those of your Lordships who listened to my speech on the last occasion may remember that I gave examples of the cost of a piped supply together with the requisite sewerage which would be occasioned by it. It would run into enormous figures in a district where a penny rate only brings in, we will say, £100 or less a year. Half a loaf is better than no bread, and
624
it is quite clear that we should like this Bill to be at least as successful as the Rural Water Supplies Act, 1934. That Act resulted in the supply of piped water to half the houses in rural districts which were without a proper supply. That has brought a blessing to a large number of people who had had to go bucket carrying, which was the case in hundreds of thousands of houses. If this Bill has the result in a short time of once again halving the number of such people I, for one, shall be very glad because it will mean an increase in the health and happiness of a large number of people.
It must be recognized that this Bill does not touch the position of farms. I gave your Lordships on the last occasion some figures with regard to the cost of supplying water to farms and I will not repeat them, but I would observe that when farms are the subject of compulsory water supply you will have to remember that farming land has been derated. You will therefore have the curious result before your eyes that those who have been clamouring for water will not themselves have to pay additional rates for its supply. That is a very serious consideration and I am not sure that you will be able to impose on the owners of dwelling houses and the like extra rates for supplying water to farms which are going to derive great benefit but are not going to contribute a penny in respect of it. What is passing in my mind is that if farms are to have the really ample supply of water which is required it will be necessary to make them contribute something, perhaps by means of a tap which would make them pay a small sum per thousand gallons supplied.
May I say just a word on a subject which I have enlarged on before and is very closely connected with the happiness of rural people? That is the case of the bucket carrier. All your Lordships must have seen men and women at the end of a long day's work trudging along the road carrying buckets of water taken from some distant stream or spring. When I say distant, three hundred yards is a considerable distance to carry water, but many people have to carry it more than a mile. That I should like to see diminished. What I want the Government to consider is this. When the war comes to an end there will be tens of thousands of motor vehicles in the possession of the Government which they will not be able

625
to get rid of, except as scrap. Could not a scheme be devised by which these motor vehicles, many of them at present in excellent condition, could be used to supply water twice a day by fitting cisterns into the vehicles? Those vehicles could go round the districts like the vehicles which take children to school in remote districts. It would result, in my belief, in enormous benefit at small cost to poor people who may only be able to get water by buckets for, it may be, ten years or it may be, humanly speaking, for ever.
I would like the Government to consider whether help could not be given in that respect. I am not asking for an answer now, but if it can be done I am quite sure a great many people will bless the Government for doing it. Many rural district authorities are exceedingly poor. A penny rate brings in a sum which is almost laughable because it is so small having regard to the fact that a great part of the district is derated. They must have assistance from somebody, but the amount would be small. It is very largely a question of getting somebody to work out a scheme of arranging for the vehicles to be put in order and for pumps to be installed at suitable places. The people in the district, I believe, would he willing to pay some small sum per bucket for the water they receive. I hope that suggestion will be thought worthy of consideration by those in charge of this measure.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bingley said the Government had laid an egg. They have, I am afraid, possibly laid a double yolked egg, certainly a curate's egg, because there are really two Bills within one in the measure we are now considering. If the two had been separate it would have been a great deal easier to deal with this Bill. On many grounds I welcome whole-heatedly the majority of the provisions in the water supply part of the Bill, but I am very doubtful if the urban mind, ignorant of country matters, has not been at work on the sewerage side of it. If we are going to have a water supply system out of the £15,000,000 which have been promised I agree that it should be adequate; but if this expenditure is to include sewerage in difficult areas I believe that the figure would be most inadequate.
It has been admitted, I think, by every noble Lord who has spoken that, although
626
there may be enough water in the country as a whole, we do not as yet, by any means, know the right methods of using it. While undoubtedly we want to get proper water supplies in rural areas as soon as possible, I personally feel that we should be very careful lest we make grave mistakes in over-abstraction before we know where we are. Therefore, I suggest, that riverine abstraction should be the rule rather than the exception for new water undertakings, and that underground extraction should not be resorted to freely until we have ascertained definitely what the extent of our underground supplies really are. This is a matter which needs much research.
The sewerage problem is an extremely difficult one. The remarks of previous speakers in this debate have brought to my mind a picture of out-of-the-way isolated country areas with a few farms and barns tucked away in corners among the wind-swept hills. The trouble is that most rural areas are half urban with just a certain amount of forgotten rural district. Throughout almost the whole of the country that is the case, and this gives rise to some very serious problems which have to be faced. We find in this Bill that the charges and rates for water and sewerage are to be general to the district and not specific charges. That means really that the majority in some suburban corner will be having their rates for water and sewerage largely paid by people whom it will take years for new water and sewerage systems to reach. It it is going to be a general rate, this will be a very serious thing for some rural districts.
I have had some personal experience of this matter. I have seen how it has worked out in areas of the kind to which I refer, and I have gone into it with the clerk of a rural district council which is concerned with an area running from a dormitory area in a big city to a completely rural area. It has been estimated that a highly populated residential area with an existing sewage scheme would have as much as 2s. knocked off its rates while rural areas which could not possibly benefit might have anything up to 1s. or more added. The greater the extension of rural sewage to sparsely populated areas the higher the general rates become and, in addition, the more injustice to ratepayers who still could not benefit. To-day some of our Allies are celebrating

627
a day which was to us not a very happy one in our history—July 4. This is the anniversary of the day, I have always understood, which saw the final outcome of a war about taxation with no representation. It seems to me that we are making the same mistake of taxation and no representation here, on this question of sewerage being paid for by people who cannot possibly benefit in cases where the expenses will undoubtedly be very large. I repeat that to me that seems extremely unjust.
Again with regard to the question of water, a great many people who have put in excellent and adequate water supplies will be asked to pay rates for something that they have provided for themselves; that is to say, for schemes from which they will receive no benefit. That is a small matter, however, and because of the necessity of a proper water supply and because of its universality as a need, I feel that we ought perhaps to give our blessing to the idea that the rate should be general. But, on the other hand, I feel very strongly that the rate for sewerage should be confined to those who are the beneficiaries from a sewerage plan. I hate to have to repeat some of the things which I said in our debate on this subject on April 26, but I feel I must allude to some of the grave dangers attendant upon having sewage schemes put into operation, especially in having schemes which are not connected to forced pressure pump sewage. There is no definition here of what is a suitable sewage scheme. There are points which require very careful consideration before encouragement is given to water sewage. When it is impossible to connect to the main, sealed cesspits or an expensive septic tank system are necessary. Cesspits have to be emptied and incidentally I may say they are almost bound to run over and pollute underground sources of water supply. That also will be a very great danger.
Many people believe that civilization really began with the use of porcelain in these matters. My own view is rather the opposite, that not one person in a hundred who bas not a forced pump sewage system has any idea of the proper use of a water closet. It is generally used for all unwanted household bric-a-brac and practically all the detritus of modern civilization goes down its maw. Wherever cess
628
pits are used there is always danger of unhygienic conditions arising. For my part I would gladly see £500,000 of the £15,000,000 which have been allocated diverted to research for the mass production of a healthy, dry, hygienic system of rural sewage disposal. It would be both convenient and useful and would effect an enormous saving in rates in the future. I am afraid we have promised that this new world, about which we have spoken so much, is going to appear very quickly after the war. It is going to comprise a most complete electricity supply, ideal houses, ideal sewerage, and ideal water supply. People having been taught that, it will be very hard if what we should like to see happen in isolated country districts should have the effect of sending us back and not forward.
I did a few calculations about these costs. I agree with providing water and bathrooms where practicable and reasonable, but individual sewage systems I find very difficult to reconcile myself to, unless there is a good natural drainage system available. It is quite likely that by the time we have built our improved houses, provided the extra cesspits, extra services and so on, the farm labourer whom I am more than glad now has a minimum of 65s. a week, may find himself paying 25s. of that in rates and rent. If that happens he will be in a worse position than he was in before the war, because the cost of living has gone up a great deal. For twenty years I have tried, in practice and otherwise, to work for the betterment of the conditions of the people on whom this country depends and without whom it will perish—the rural craftsmen and the farm workers. I am very frightened that by this means we shall set up a vicious spiral of high expenses, which will in the end result in unemployment and slump and the very situation which we seek to avoid.
Everything that has happened since our last debate tends to confirm not only my own observations but those of nearly every expert with whom I have talked—namely, that underground abstraction has already proceeded far too fast and far too far, and that it has a cumulative effect in dry seasons. We cannot afford to take our average water-levels for calculating what we can abstract; we have to take our drought levels, because, if we do not, the result may be cataclysmic. Whatever form this Bill takes, I hope

629
that the Minister will, above everything else, watch that position to see that it does not get out of hand, because, if it does, there will be no recovery.
LORD BRABAZON of TARA: My Lords, I should like to say a word as to the positioning of water-mains and sewers. We have seen recently the complication which exists under our roads to-day. When we have to carry our repairs and alterations, we find a regular macaroni of tubes and pipes of water, sewage, gas, electricity and so on under all our roads. When any repair or alteration has to be made, up domes the road. It is a most expensive way of proceeding, but it is somehow enshrined—I do not know why—in a long tradition which it is hard to break. I tried to break it when I was Minister of Transport, but I found that nothing could be done. In the new districts and the new roads, I hope that all the ancillary services which have previously been put under the road will be put at the side of the road, so that repairs and alterations can be undertaken without dislocating the traffic and wasting money in pulling up the road and putting it back again.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to reply to some of the questions addressed to me. I cannot complain of the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill, because it has had a general welcome from all sides of the House; but I am bound to say that some noble Lords, and especially my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, asked many questions which are not germane to this Bill, but which will in fact be germane to the bigger Bill which is to follow at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, in the course of his remarks asked whether my right honourable friend would see that vigorous administration was undertaken to make sure that the local authorities carry out their duties under this Bill. My right honourable friend is fully alive to that need, and will do everything he can to ensure that that vigorous administration does take place as soon as the Bill is passed.
Lord Addison expressed doubt as to whether £15,000,000 was a sufficient sum of money for dealing with this vast problem. We have never maintained that £15,000,000 was sufficient, and as my noble friend Lord Bingley says, the Gov
630
ernment can always come back to Parliament for more. This, however, is not the total figure but only the Government contribution in the form of grants in aid. In addition there will be the sum of money—pound for pound—provided by the county councils, and there will also be the expenditure incurred by the local authorities, who will, moreover, be able to count upon the income received from consumers in the case of water.
With regard to the White Paper, many of the remarks which fell from the noble Lord will, of course, be dealt with in the bigger Bill which is to follow, and I hope that noble Lords will not press me at this stage to give an indication of what will be in that Bill when it is presented. There is undoubtedly every reason why local authorities should plan and prepare at this time, so that as soon as possible after the war these schemes may be put into effect. Personally, I should deeply regret it if this Bill were to be delayed in order that we should make another survey, as was advocated by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. He will, I know, recognize that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has a vast mass of information, to which he is constantly adding, which will assist him in examining the schemes which are put to him by the local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Bledisloe raised the question of fertilizers. I understand that this whole question of the use of sewage material is being examined by the Agricultural Research Council in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture. He also raised the question of pollution. That does not come into this Bill at all, but will be dealt with in the bigger Bill which is to follow. And I should like to say that I am not so pessimistic as the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth. I believe that this Bill will be of great benefit to rural areas. With regard to the question of payment for sewage schemes, I would make it clear that up to 1929 the whole of the expenses of such schemes in rural areas was invariably a charge on the parish rate, and at times meant an extremely heavy burden, amounting to several shillings in the pound for this one service alone. In the case of water, a large part of the cost was borne by the consumers, but whatever part fell on the local rates was, as in the case of sewage, charged to the parish rate. In 1929, the rural district councils were given powers

631
to spread the charges for those services over a far wider area, which in fact they did—namely, over the whole rural district instead of the parish. In this Bill, Clause 6 converts what has become more or less a general practice of rural district councils into an obligation to charge to the district rate all water and sewage expenses which at present fall on local rates. I shall not pursue the matter, but I could argue that housing expenses falling on local rates have, ever since local authorities went in for housing activities on any scale at all, been charged to the district rate and not to the parish rate, and it seems to me that there is no reason whatever why the same principle should not apply in the case of water and sewage.
Finally, I would ask my noble friend Lord Brabazon to let me take the point which he made to the Minister, who will no doubt consider it during the time that these plans are being presented to him by the county councils. I do not think that I need say more on this matter at the present time. It is, as your Lordships know, a highly complicated subject, but this is nevertheless a small Bill, which I think your Lordships would be well advised to pass, for it will be of great benefit to people who live in rural localities.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this small Bill of seven clauses, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time, will not take more than a very few moments. It will not in any way, I think, prove controversial, for it merely contains some small miscellaneous amendments to the Government of India Act, 1935. In 1941 Parliament approved an Act which extended the maximum permissible life of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies from five years to a period expiring twelve months after the end of the war, but that Act did not touch the Legislative Councils, or Upper Houses as they have come to be called, in the six Provinces, namely Madras, Bombay,
632
Bengal, the United Provinces, Bihar and Assam, where they exist. The Legislative Councils are permanent bodies not subject to dissolution but subject to a rotational system of election so that one-third of the members retire every third year. Although the provisions of the principal Act governing Legislative Council elections have been suspended in those Provinces temporarily administered under Section 93, elections have been held in Bengal and Assam, where Ministerial Governments are functioning. The suspension of elections in Section 93 Provinces has upset the rotation system which, as I have just pointed out, provided that one-third of the members should retire every three years, and it is now proposed, under Clause 1 of the Bill, that the period of office of members of the Legislative Councils in Section 93 Provinces shall be extended by the period for which the proclamations are in force, plus an additional period up to twelve months so as to enable the elections to be held at a suitable time of the year.
Clause 2 of the Bill makes it clear that if a Judge of the High Court is transferred to another High Court or to the Federal Court, he shall not retain his office of Judge of the High Court from which he was transferred. This is the only clause of the Bill which will be retrospective. I might mention that there is a similar provision in Section 10 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, applicable to High Court Judges in this country. Clause 3 of the Bill amends Section 314 of the principal Act under which the advisers of the Secretary of State shall not be more than twelve nor less than eight in number. This was a transitional provision pending the establishment of Federation. In the circumstances of war it is now proving increasingly difficult to ensure that the statutory minimum of eight can be maintained. Travelling arrangements between India and this country are severely limited and, furthermore, those who might be appointed as advisers are fully engaged on important work connected with the war. It is therefore proposed that the statutory minimum of eight may be reduced to five, but it is the intention of my right honourable friend to work to the higher figure as long as possible.
I now pass to Clause 4 of the Bill. Under the principal Act leave of absence

633
cannot be granted to the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief more than once during their period of office, thus, should the holders of these important posts be called outside India for consultation, they would, as the Act now stands, have automatically surrendered their right for any period of lease during their tenure of office. My right honourable friend, after consultation with the Viceroy, who is in agreement, is of the opinion that it may be both necessary and desirable for the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief to leave India for brief periods for the purpose of personal consultation either here in London or somewhere nearer the shores of India. There can be no doubt that under the strain of present conditions personal contact is most useful.
It is intended to amend Section 86 of the Ninth Schedule of the principal Act so that leave of absence on duty will not impair the statutory right of the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief to go on leave for reasons of health or private affairs once during their period of office. Clause 5 of the Bill amends Section 87 of the Ninth Schedule by removing the obligation to appoint an acting Commander-in-Chief during the Commander-in-Chief's absence on duty. It will be generally agreed that during his brief absence from the country there is no practical necessity for appointing a deputy. The House will, however, notice that an acting Commander-in-Chief will still be appointed when the Commander-in-Chief is granted leave of absence for reasons of health and private affairs, and that whenever the Viceroy is absent for any reason whatever, an acting Governor General must be appointed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR-TIME REGISTRATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, it will require a few minutes only, I think, to explain
634
this Bill to your Lordships and to secure your general assent. It makes temporary amendments in the Parliamentary Elections (War-Time Registration) Act which we passed last year. Your Lordships will remember that the old system of this country was that since you could not vote in a constituency unless your name was on the register, the register was made up on the 15th October, containing the names of residents who qualified from having resided for at least three months, between the 1st of March and the 1st of June of the preceding year. That was a bad system; it involves a very serious lag between the time when the voter is qualifying and the time when he exercises his vote. The lag is at best four and a half months, and it may be as much as sixteen and a half months. All those objections were enormously magnified by the circumstances of the war. In fact, there has not been any keeping up of that register, and it was most important to start a new system in the future.
The Government therefore appointed a very strong Committee, a Departmental Committee on Electoral Machinery, and this Committee made a very ingenious recommendation. It recommended that there should be continuous registration, that the register should always be kept up to date, principally by the use of the National Registration Act, supplemented by other procedure. Under that plan when a General Election came, it would be possible to freeze the new register, and that is the register which would serve for a General Election, everybody on it being qualified, as far as he was qualified, within two months of the election taking place. The Government adopted these recommendations and put them in the important Bill of last year, which still stands. Unfortunately, the Government tried to do rather better than that. The Committee had never taken into their contemplation by-elections. Their proposals were for a General Election; but the Government, striving to do better, included in the scheme of the Bill which we carried last year by-elections. It was very necessary that we should do so, for they produce the greatest difficulty of all at this very minute. The register goes back before the war, and one result is that nobody can vote unless he is at least twenty-five.
It was thus very appropriate that the Government should try to enlarge the

635
scheme in that way, but, having enlarged it and carried the main Act last November, including by-elections, and getting everything up-to-date, it was found necessary to take counsel with the very skilled people—registration officers and others—who make the detailed administrative plan for working the arrangement. That having been gone into closely, it has been ascertained beyond question that, in the view of the most experienced of these people now available, it would be impossible to work the scheme of last year unless it was somewhat modified. The choice really is between leaving the scheme of last year a dead letter—so to speak, preserving it in the refrigerator until it might be brought out in happier times—or altering it in certain particulars. It would obviously be very wrong for Parliament to throw its hand in and say it would do nothing; the situation would grow worse and worse. Consequently, the Government now come forward, with all due apologies, and say that the Bill which we passed last year—on which I made a most eloquent speech last November !—has to be modified.
The modifications are really two. Under the Act of 1943 the qualification for being put on the civilian register, on the score of residence, was continuous residence in a constituency for not less than two months prior to the last day of the month before that in which the election is held. That involves a great deal more in the way of examination and investigation than you might suppose—particularly the provision regarding two months. There is the case of the man who has left his address and moved somewhere else in the same constituency. Against that, you have the man who is a bird of passage and who may have moved through three or four constituencies in the course of the last two months. Every one of these cases has to be individually checked, as our Bill provided last year, and that cannot be done with the staff of experts available now. So many have gone to the war and so many others cannot get the necessary supplementary staff. This Bill therefore makes two changes which will greatly simplify the matter for the time being, though I am far from saying that the changes in themselves improve the system—I do not think they do.
The first change it is proposed to make is this—to give up for the time being this
636
test of continuous residence and put upon the register a voter who is entitled to be included because he is registered in the National Register as residing in the constituency on the qualifying date. That gives the go-by to the bird of passage, no matter how many constituencies he has travelled through. The registration authority simply looks at the National Register, finds the man there, and says, "There you are—I put him on the list of voters." The other thing that has to be done is with regard to the period for qualifying. It puts the qualifying date back another month. We are assured, by those who know the subject best—and it is a most expert business, full of technicalities, as every one who has been an electioneerer knows—that the thing will work. We therefore propose to put back the date by another month, making it three months, and also propose to rely for the time being on the fact that the name of the man or woman is in the National Register at that address without inquiring into his or her recent history and peregrinations.
The Bill is purely temporary. There is a provision in it that it has to be brought to an end by the end of 1945. If, on the other hand, the Home Secretary finds he has got his tackle in order more rapidly than might be feared, it will be open to him to bring the expiration date into operation sooner than the Statute contemplates. These are the provisions of the Bill. I have endeavoured to explain them in non-technical language. I hope I have satisfied the House that we ought to give a Second Reading to it, and by this means secure that the voting at by-elections, as they come along, and at the General Election, when it comes along, will be conducted on a register which is fairly up-to-date.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JEWS IN THE ARMED FORCES.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask his Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the proposal that, in addition to the one million Jews already serving in the Armed Forces of the United Nations,

637
facilities should be afforded for the formation of a Jewish Army under British or United Nations Command to fight on any required battlefield and to be composed of volunteers not at present liable to compulsory military service, such as Stateless refugee and Palestinian Jews, together with volunteers from neutral countries, and territories liberated from the enemy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Templemore and Lord Southwood for arranging a time for this Motion which I have had on the Paper for some weeks and also for the compliment of fixing it on American Independence Day. There is a similar Motion on the Order Paper in another place in the names of fifty-three Members of Parliament of all Parties, and my proposal is supported by some of your Lordships here. I am not putting this forward officially on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, but I have discussed the matter with my right honourable friend Mr. Greenwood who knows the subject very well and he is very favourable to the proposal contained in my question.
As my noble friend Lord Croft knows, this question has nothing to do with Palestine or with the politics of Palestine, for which he is no doubt very grateful. It does not affect those Jews who are serving or eligible to serve in our own National Forces. It does not affect the Jews who are serving in the forces of our Allies. For instance, it does not affect the 600,000 Jews serving in the Russian Army, of whom 30,000 have been decorated for valour and 120 have been given the highest award—Hero of the Soviet Union. It does not affect General Chernyakovsky whose northern group of armies captured Minsk and are now heading for East Prussia and Konigsberg. This does not affect that kind of Jew at all. They are already provided for in their own National Forces. It does not affect the Jews in the French Foreign Legion who formed the bulk of the Force under General Koenig at Bir Hakeim. Nor does it affect the 30,000 Jews in Palestine who joined the Eighth Army and other British Forces, many of whom are now serving in Italy with distinction. It does not affect men like Brigadier General Kish, chief engineer of the Eighth Army and pioneer of mine clearance, who was killed in Tunisia. Nor
638
does it affect the 24,000 refugee Jews of all nationalities in Marshal Tito's Army in Yugoslavia.
The object is to recruit Stateless and refugee Jews, Jews in neutral countries and the Jews in Egypt, Iraq, Teheran and Turkey. In the Middle East countries and in North Africa there is a permanent Jewish population of 600,000 and my plea is that the very many able-bodied men in these communities should have an opportunity of serving against the common enemy. For instance, 5,000 young Jews are now ready in the Argentine to join such a force and should have an opportunity of taking part in the war. It may be said by my noble friend these people, or at any rate many of them, can join our Pioneer Corps. No one underrates the value of the Pioneer Corps but these men want to go into combatant units; into front line units. Others again are deeply religious men and hesitate to join ordinary units because there may be a difficulty about religious observance, whereas in a Jewish Army it could be easier to keep those observances. There is a precedent for that in what occurred during the last war. As to the numbers concerned the estimate of the number of men of military age, many of them already trained soldiers, including the untouched reservoir of man-power in Palestine, is between 100,000 to 150,000 or the equivalent of ten divisions. These are recruits who would be willing to serve anywhere in the world.
I need not stress to your Lordships the sentimental appeal that such a force would make to Jews everywhere. Hitler has declared the Jew to be his enemy Number 1. They offer themselves as our ally Number 1. As to the practical steps to be taken I suggest as a start that the Jewish battalions now serving in Italy could be increased and formed into separate divisions. These are Palestinian Jews who form separate battalions and are now serving in Italy. There is no reason why we should not take into these battalions other Jews from the Argentine, Egypt and Turkey, and from other countries and liberated areas. These recruits should not be limited to battalions but their numbers could be increased and later on they could be formed into divisions and then into corps.
I suggest that this offer should be seriously considered, apart from all other

639
grounds, because as the war develops man-power becomes of ever greater importance. Already we have had appeals from the President of the United States and our Prime Minister for all the available man-power and General Eisenhower has made a striking declaration of the importance of man-power in the great battles that are now raging on the Continent and which will increase in intensity. All your Lordships are well aware of that point. Here is an offer of a very large number of ardent soldiers whom we can have for the asking.
This project has very wide support in the United States and a Committee which has been working on it for some time had the support of the late Colonel Knox. It has the support now of Mr. Stimson, Mrs. Roosevelt, many States Governors, General Hershay, the officer corresponding to our Adjutant-General who has the responsibilities of man-power in the United States; and also the support of all the trade union leaders in America with one exception, Mr. John Lewis, who is always in a minority. It also has the support of the Presidents of many American universities and the Bishops and clergy of both Protestant and Catholic Churches, and of 250 Senators and members of the House of Representatives. The first Chairman of the American Committee is a well-known American gentleman, Dr. Samuel Church, and Senator Johnson, the President of the Carnegie Institute, is now Chairman. In this country besides many of your Lordships and Members of the House of Commons there is a similar Committee which had the support of the late General Wingate and of Field-Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode, Field-Marshal Lord Plumer and many others with wide experience who believe that this would be a valuable contribution to the war effort of the United Nations—a great body of young men, many trained soldiers, whose zeal in the struggle against Hitlerism is beyond doubt. They only ask to be allowed to serve in Jewish units and brigades in the front line and to wear their own badges as in the case, for example, of our own Scottish regiments.
Just before the outbreak of war Dr. Weizmann, on behalf of the Jewish Agency, who really I suppose is the spokesman for the great majority of Jews throughout the world, offered to Mr.
640
Chamberlain, then Prime Minister, help from Jewry all over the world in every way, including man-power. A few days later the war actually broke out. Dr. Weizmann offered to raise a Jewish fighting force to start to fight side by side with the British forces and under British command. He offered 10,000 men at once, and eventually 60,000, most of them in America, then neutral. This offer, after much consideration, was rejected on the grounds of lack of equipment. One can understand that being the case at that time. When the United States was still neutral and this country was in great peril in 1940 the Committee of which I have spoken were busy in the United States and they offered to raise at once—that was in 1940–100,000 Jewish volunteers for His Majesty's Army. This offer was also rejected again on the ground of lack of equipment. We who know the situation in regard to the position in 1940 can quite understand the reasons then given; but now another 100,000 Jews, most of them not liable for military service at all, offer their services as combatants. I understand the munition difficulty has been got over now. We have abundant arms and munitions of all kinds and I would suggest that His Majesty's Government should very carefully consider this matter before they reject this offer. I beg to move.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I should not like this Motion to be passed over without saying a word or two upon it. As the noble Lord has so earnestly pressed upon the House it is undoubtedly the case that Jews throughout the world greatly desire to be able to join in this fight, against the greatest enemy that has ever afflicted them, in the form of some identifiable Jewish unit. The fact that a very large number of Jews obviously are in the various units that are scattered throughout the world does not altogether satisfy this demand and if the War Office can find some way of dealing with this very sincere and very natural desire it would certainly be responded to on a very large scale by those who have as great a desire, perhaps the greatest desire in the world, to destroy the Fascist and Nazi régimes against which we are fighting.
As to the scale upon which something of this kind can be organized at this stage of the war, naturally the noble Lord who speaks for the War Office will have far

641
more knowledge than anyone outside can have. He will know that at the present time these matters have been raised between the great Jewish Agency and the Secretary of State for War, and that we are anxiously awaiting some sort of answer to the questions that have been put to him. In particular, they would like to press what was pressed something like a year ago, this very modest request for the formation at least of a Jewish brigade the basis of which could very easily be those battalions of the Palestine regiments that are at present serving in Palestine and Libya, who are, as they feel, wasting their time on guard duties when both officers and men are not only ready but anxious to take part in the actual fighting. They feel very strongly that they have not been given perhaps the sort of deal which they expected when they volunteered. None of these men are conscripts, they are all volunteers. If something can be done by the War Office to relieve the present situation I think they will be doing an act of justice and conceding something for which perhaps these men have the right to ask. The least that a man can ask for is the right to fight against his enemies in a properly organize unit—and that is all this demand amounts to—on the scale of a division or a brigade. At this period of the war I really think that might be acceded to.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, my remarks to-day, as the noble Lord rightly conjectured, will be confined to the military aspect of the proposal that a Jewish Army should be formed to take part in the war under British or United Nations command. The case for the formation of such an Army is based on two main propositions—namely, that there is a shortage of man-power, and that as many as ten or twelve divisions could be formed from Jews who are not yet serving, or who are not liable to compulsory service, or who are not at present eligible to serve in combatant units.
With the proposition that there is a shortage of man-power, no one could be found to quarrel; and if it could be found that ten or twelve divisions could be trained and equipped for service the combatant nations—I am convinced in this case I car speak for all of them—would
642
welcome the addition of ten or twelve divisions to their forces. The question is whether in fact those divisions could be made available from the sources mentioned by the noble Lord, and whether the men from which they would be formed could, by and large, make a more valuable contribution to the Allied war effort as members of such formations than they would if they continued in their present capacities.
The noble Lord spoke of an Army comprising Jewish infantry divisions, Jewish Commandos, Jewish Air Squadrons and Jewish Tank Corps. I would like to take the snore simple proposal of the formation of some considerable number—ten or twelve, I think—Jewish infantry divisions which he postulated in the earlier part of his speech. Now, an infantry division requires a first-line strength of some 18,000 men, of whom, be it noted, quite a considerable proportion are employed in the various Services, such as R.A.S.C., R.A.M.C., R.E.M.E., Signals, etc. Twelve such divisions thus demand 216,000 men. The matter does not end there. Each infantry division requires several thousands of men per year to replace battle casualties and normal wastage by sickness and other causes; so that, to nourish the twelve divisions, a large reservoir of Jewish man-power would have to be available.
Lastly there is the obvious fact that an infantry division cannot live on nothing. It must have behind it its administrative tail, and its proper complement of Corps, Army and lines of communication troops. We find, therefore, that twelve infantry divisions really represents a man-power commitment far in excess of the capacity of any resources mentioned by the noble Lord, even including the 30,000 men he expects to get from Europe, to whom I will refer in a moment. It may, of course, be said that the Corps, Army and lines of communication troops need not necessarily consist of Jews; but the problem of finding them from other sources is obviously one of the greatest possible difficulty. There is also the consideration that these troops themselves will require reinforcements to make good normal wastage.
The sources of supply mentioned by the noble Lord were Palestine, the Middle East and Near East countries, French North Africa, European countries such as

643
Spain, France, Yugoslavia and Italy, Great Britain and the U.S.A., and South America. The recruitment of Jews from these very diverse countries presents a large number of different problems. To mention only a few, the Jews in Palestine have already contributed a large proportion of their man-power to the Armed Forces of the Empire, and any considerable further recruitment would lead to a dearth of man-power for her essential industries. The great majority of Jews in this country, the U.S.A., and French North Africa are either serving already, or are engaged in work no less essential to the war effort. Any suggestion that Jews already serving, especially in the technical arms in which so many of them are engaged, should transfer out of these arms into newly-created Jewish formations would be entirely unacceptable, since it would cause a really serious degree of dislocation. The same applies to the Jews serving under Marshal Tito; he would be very reluctant to part with any considerable number.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not suggest taking Marshal Tito's men away from him. I said this did not apply to them. They are already serving.
LORD CROFT: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I thought he meant men already trained in that country might be found to take their part. We are left with recruits from France, Italy, the countries of the Middle and Near East, Spain and South America. The number of recruits forthcoming from these countries must necessarily be largely a matter of speculation, especially since most of them would be liable to military service in their own countries, and recruitment in large numbers could only be with the consent of the respective Governments. Further, the different backgrounds from which they would come, their different languages and national characteristics would obviously impose difficulties in the way of welding them into a coherent whole.
This brings me to the question of the equipment, organization and training of the proposed force. The noble Lord said that there was now no question about equipment. I hope he will forgive my saying that this is to take an unduly optimistic view of the situation. It is true that our Armies to-day are among the best equipped in the world: but the equipment
644
of as many as twelve new divisions is obviously a major task which could not be undertaken without a considerable diversion of effort. The carriage alone of such a large quantity of equipment to such place as might be chosen for the mobilization of these divisions would entail a heavy transport commitment.
Organization presents an equally big problem. War daily becomes a more complex and specialized art. Supposing that we were suddenly to find ourselves with some 250,000 Jews drawn from four different continents and many times that number of nations, I think the complexity of the problem would be appreciated. We would first of all have to find transport to bring them all to some central place, in itself no small problem, and we would have to find accommodation for them there. We would then have to try to sort them out into the jobs for which they were best fitted as individuals. Officers and non-commissioned officers would have to be selected, headquarters and staffs created, and indeed the whole complicated task of creating a large force out of a number of polyglot individuals would have to be undertaken with the added disadvantage that there would be no ready-made cadre upon which to build. This would evidently be a process which would take months, but which would have to be undertaken before any training except of the most elementary nature could begin. The training of a modern Army is also a lengthy process, more particularly in the technical arms, such as the Artillery, Medical Corps, Signals and so on. The minimum time within which a formation could be trained so as to be fit for battle would be eight months, and might well take as long as a year. I would mention in passing that this organization and training would have to be supervised by British or United Nations personnel—I do not think it could be done by anyone else—and this would represent a very considerable diversion of effort from the main task of winning the war as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord puts forward his plea for a Jewish Army on the very understandable ground that the Jews are anxious to strike their own blow against their oppressor Germany. But for reasons that I have indicated their capacity for doing so would not eventuate for many months to come and, with God's good

645
grace, Germany will, we hope, have gone down to defeat long before a Jewish Army could, on the most optimistic view, be ready to take the field. This brings me to the noble Lord's alternative proposal which is very much more in keeping with the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the Palestine Regiment should be expanded into a Jewish Division and that this should be used in active operation against the enemy by whom I presume the noble Lord means Germany. The difficulties which I have mentioned before apply to this proposal also, though in a lesser degree. Moreover, the organization and training of such a division would take many months. This would interfere unduly with the preparation and movement of formations which are likely to be more immediately called upon to fight against the enemy, and we therefore regard this also as not being a practicable proposition. Whether the organization of a smaller specifically Jewish formation—for example, a brigade or a brigade group—would be practicable, I cannot say to-day. But I can say that the possibility is being very darefully studied.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for his reply and I am not a bit downcast as a result of it, especially having regard to the last part of what he said. A number of us who are interested in this matter—we are all members of one House of Parliament or the other—asked my right honourable friend the Minister for War to receive us in a deputation. He is going to do so but he thought it more courteous to your Lordships to wait for this debate before we were received by him. We will now renew our request to the Secretary of State, and I know that he will see us. I think that we shall be able to clear away some of the technical difficulties which have been referred to by my noble friend to-day. One difficulty can certainly be cleared up, that of language. In my view, there is really no language difficulty. Yiddish is the international language which is used among these people, and, quite apart from that, many of these people have travelled nearly all over the world as refugees and they are very good linguists. If my noble friend thinks that ten divisions is an over estimate, why hot five? I think some of these questions can be got over easily, and I was very grateful
646
to the noble Lord for what he said about the possibility of a brigade being formed out of the existing Jewish battalions.
I know the War Office language very well by this time for I have suffered under it for a good many years. I think the War Office rather misses the spiritual side of this question. The War Office authorities pay tremendous attention to the morale of their own regiments, the British regiments. The same sort of consideration applies here and I do not think they quite appreciate that or understand the tremendous sentimental appeal, the urge that this formation would give, and the pride that these long-suffering people would take in an effort of this kind. They can fight, as my noble friend knows, and they only want an opportunity of showing their prowess. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND FOR AGRICULTURE.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the statement in paragraph 19 of "The Control of Land Use" (Command Paper 6537), that "land which to-day is used for agriculture may to-morrow be required for housing or industry," they will give an undertaking that they have reserved the minimum area of agricultural land necessary for the maintenance of a healthy agricultural industry at home and of national security; and, if so, whether they will state the extent of that area.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, it is not thought necessary to reserve the minimum area of agricultural land for the purposes mentioned by the noble Lord. Such an approach ignores the variation in quality of land which is at least as important a factor as the quantity of land required for housing or industry. The principle that the Government are seeking to establish is that land should be put to its optimum use, and in this connexion I would refer to the statement made by Lord Reith behalf of the Government in this House on

647
the 11th February, 1942, which included the following: The Government
"… will seek to avoid the diversion of productive agricultural land to other purposes if there is unproductive or less productive land that could reasonably be used for these purposes."
Effect is being given to this policy through the Minister of Agriculture's rural land utilization officers, who are consulted, together with other Departments concerned, on proposals to develop agricultural land. I would like to pay a tribute to local authorities and planning authorities who have welcomed the advice of rural land utilization officers, and who are constantly seeking their services. Sporadic and uncontrolled development in the past has affected a much greater area of land than that occupied by actual buildings; this has been a principal source of damage to agriculture and has led to the waste of much land. It can be avoided only by effective planning control such as would be facilitated by proposals
648
contained in the White Paper to which the noble Lord has referred.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for the answer, which I think is as satisfactory a one as I could expect. No doubt my noble friend is aware that there is considerable alarm among some of the most important agricultural organizations in the country concerning the paragraph to which I refer in my question, in view of its relation to the formation of any future agricultural policy.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.