Sitting of 9 February 1949

Preamble
The House met at Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GERMANY

    Exports (Competition)
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent unfair competition in British export markets by German manufacturers with factories in the Bizone.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bevin): I am glad to have an opportunity of making a statement on this subject, which has recently attracted considerable attention both in this country and in Germany.
    In the first place, a sharp distinction must be drawn between competition and unfair competition. So far as ordinary commercial competition is concerned, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to restore a healthy and visible economy in Germany. To achieve this, a large and inceasing expansion in German exports will be required. His Majesty's Government do not intend to use their position as an occupying power to prevent such an expansion, providing that it is achieved by fair means.
    So far as unfair competition is concerned, I expect that provision will be made in the Occupation Statute to reserve to the Military Governors all necessary powers to prevent the development of unfair trade practices. So far as Ruhr coal, coke and steel are concerned,
    342
    special powers for the prevention of discriminatory practices will be conferred on the Ruhr Authority under the draft Agreement recently negotiated. In general, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to ensure that the German economy should develop on a sound and healthy basis, since this offers the most effective safeguard against any resort to unfair trade practices.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether he will examine the extremely artificial currency rates which are contributing to the rapid development of German exports, and appear to convey the impression of unfair competition? Will he also consider the feelings of alarm in other European countries at the sight of so much German competition which in many cases is already undercutting British exports, notably in Belgium and France and other recently occupied countries?
    Mr. Bevin: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will he making a statement in the House on this matter, and I prefer to leave all those problems to him. My difficulty is that in this case, whereas I am responsible for the administration of Germany, it is the duty of the President of the Board of Trade, if anything is unfair or wrong in respect of currency or anything else, to make representations.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: While agreeing that these questions are more appropriate to the President of the Board of Trade, may I ask when the President of the Board of Trade proposes to make this statement?
    Mr. Bevin: Today, I think.
    Mr. Peter Roberts: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is evidence in Sheffield that firms are losing cutlery orders in India through drastic underselling from Germany?
    Mr. Bevin: I think the hon. Member had better wait for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. As Foreign Secretary I cannot go into these details. If the Board of Trade find anything is wrong, then they must come along, just as they would on any other problem.

    Air Lift, Berlin
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the type and number of aircraft being used by Airflight Limited for taking part in the air lift to Berlin; what is the total cost to date paid to this organisation; and what is the hire fee charged for the use of these Government-owned aircraft.
    Mr. Bevin: Airflight Limited have two Tudor aircraft (Marks II and V), fitted with tanks for the conveyance of liquid fuel, in the air lift to Berlin. It is contrary to established practice to divulge the terms of Government contracts or the amounts paid to individual companies for their services. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, I should add that these aircraft are not owned by the Government but by Airflight Limited.
    Mr. Cooper: Is it not a fact that these aircraft were obtained from Avro's under a Government order; is it the fact, as my right hon. Friend states, that the aircraft belong to Airflight Ltd.; and that the Government have paid substantially, if not entirely, for the aircraft already and are, in fact, paying twice by now paying any air hire for the same aircraft?
    Mr. Bevin: I understand they were bought by this Company.

  HUMAN RIGHTS (DRAFT COVENANT)
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to promote the adoption by U.N.O. of the Draft Covenant of Human Rights, which will follow up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will be legally binding and enforceable in Member States.
  Mr. Bevin: Our delegates have on many occasions emphasised the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the Covenant of Human Rights. In particular, I would refer my hon. Friend to the words of our delegate in the debate at the recent session of the General Assembly:
  "We are therefore most anxious that the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council should continue at all speed to draw up and complete these remaining parts of the International Bill of Human Rights."
  344
  This statement accurately describes the policy of His Majesty's Government, and we shall continue as members of the Commission on Human Rights to cooperate fully in the preparation of the Covenant.
  Mr. Fletcher: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him if, in view of the high hopes aroused by this proposal and some misunderstanding which surrounds it, he will continue to ensure that our delegates do everything possible to proceed with the Covenant, which will, at any rate, include provision for reference to an international court?
  Mr. Bevin: I certainly will press on with it. I think the Covenant is much more important than a mere declaration.
  Mr. Gallacher: Might I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he recognises as essential to human rights the right of the workers to throw the wealthy parasites off their backs?

  SOUTH SCHLESWIG
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds, other than a law of 1938, dating from the Nazi regime, the German Administrative Government of Schleswig-Holstein have denied the Kinderzuschlag or children's allowance to those parents of South Schleswig whose children attended Danish schools; and what steps he proposes to take to secure the rights of the Danish residents.
  Mr. Bevin: This is not an act of Nazism. The legislation in question was originally passed by the Weimar Republic. It does not appear to be having any widespread effect though a few children may be affected. Since education is a subject the responsibility for which has been passed to the Germans we do not wish to interfere more than is necessary. It is, however, our policy to promote good relations between the Land Government and the Danish-minded minority. Therefore we have already spoken to the Minister President, who has instituted an inquiry.
  Professor Savory: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if he is aware that letters have been sent by the President in Kiel to parents, Danish-minded as he calls

  345
  them—I prefer to call them Danish parents—saying that unless their children are withdrawn from these Danish schools the children's grant will be refused and that, according to the document I have before me, that action is based on a Nazi law of 1938? These people are being victimised because they are sending their children to a Danish school.
  Mr. Bevin: I understand the Act referred to, which was passed in 1938, reenacted a law of 1928. The original law was passed by the Weimar Republic. I have taken this matter up with the Military Governor and officials there and I think that is the right way to get the whole of this problem settled.
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the German administrative Government at Kiel proposes to close down the large municipal Danish schools in the towns of Flensborg and Schleswig as from 1st April this year, thereby affecting more than 8,000 children; that the Danish rector of the school in Schleswig Town, Mr. Svend Johannsen, received on 21st January an official notification of his dismissal; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this unauthorised action of the German administrative authorities.
  Mr. Bevin: I have called for a report on this matter and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this most distinguished teacher, the rector of the school, is being dismissed simply because he is president of the South Schleswig Danish Association? He has, however, determined not to resign because, he says, that his dismissal is illegal. Will not the right hon. Gentleman support his appeal?
  Mr. Bevin: Even a Foreign Secretary must wait for the report.

  YUGOSLAVIA (AGREEMENTS)
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the recent agreement with Yugoslavia; and, in particular, why he agreed to payments being spread over a period of 10 years.
  Mr. Bevin: On 23rd December last, three Agreements between Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom were signed. One was a Trade Agreement, providing for the exchange of goods between the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia during the year ending 30th September, 1949. Another was an Agreement under which Yugoslavia undertook to pay the sum of £4,500,000 as compensation for the expropriation of British property in Yugoslavia, including the property of British nationals of the Commonwealth countries. The third Agreement related to money and property in Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom which had been subjected to special measures in consequence of the enemy occupation of Yugoslavia.
  As regards the second part of the Question, I do not understand the reference to a period of 10 years. Article I of the Compensation Agreement states that the sum of £450,000 shall be paid by Yugoslavia as soon as possible but not later than one year after the signature of the Agreement, and that the terms and conditions of payment of the remaining£4,050,000 shall be agreed between the Contracting Governments during negotiations for a long-term trade agreement which shall be entered into at an early date.
  Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that only one-tenth of the sum owed to us is to be repaid within the first year and that the United States, I understand, are getting all their claims paid within a few months, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that is so and why we are being put into a worse position; and can he further give us any information regarding other countries, such as Sweden, about which he must have been informed before taking part in these negotiations?
  Mr. Bevin: I think that probably it is bound up with the question of sterling holdings and many other complications. The thing was settled for the moment on the basis of£450,000, the remainder to be negotiated later.
  Mr. Teeling: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a very considerable difference; why are the United States being paid off at once while we are not?
  Mr. Bevin: I think the holdings are entirely different and that the United States was in possession of a great gold holding.
  Mr. Teeling: In order to obtain some more information regarding other countries, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  TRIALS, FOREIGN COUNTRIES (BRITISH OBSERVERS)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what principles he determines when to request permission for official British observers to attend trials in foreign countries, other than the trials of British nationals.
  Mr. Bevin: Frequently permission is not needed since the trial is held publicly but permission may be requested in any case of great political interest where His Majesty's Government require to keep themselves informed of the proceedings.
  Mr. Warbey: Does that answer mean that there are no restrictions regarding countries and that requests for observers may be made in the case of any country in which there is political interest in a trial; and, if that is so, why has no request been made for the appointment of an observer in the case of Greek seamen who are being re-tried on capital charges while their appeal against a previous death sentence has not yet even been considered?
  Mr. Bevin: So far as the Greek courts are concerned there is no need to make a request. They are public.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Is it not a fact that in many of these trials one of the charges against the prisoner is that he has been in communication with representatives of the British and American Governments and that that is treated as evidence of treason; and is it not particularly monstrous in such cases that the government concerned should not be allowed to send observers?
  Mr. Bevin: I agree.
  Mr. Piratin: In view of the Foreign Secretary's statement that in cases of great political interest observers might be sent, would he consider sending an observer to
  348
  the trial which is taking place in America of 11 leading Communists, which is of great interest to many people in this country and throughout the world, and in which case the jury and judge have already made up their minds about their decision?
  Mr. Bevin: In the United States the courts are open. We have no need, any more than we have here, to make any requests at all. It is only in countries where there are restrictions on admission that we must do so. I get the same trouble, and receive letters almost every week from hon. Members, about Spain, and I have to make exactly the same kind of representation that I have had to make in the case of the Cardinal in Hungary.

  NORTH ATLANTIC PACT
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that no obligations will be entered into under the terms of the proposed Atlantic Pact whereby this country would automatically become a belligerent in the event of hostilities between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.
  Mr. Chamberlain: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the consternation that his refusal of this very moderate and modest request will cause, and that there is great public concern about what is cooking in Washington?
  Mr. Bevin: I have not heard of any consternation. When this Pact is completed—and it is not completed yet—it will be considered by the Cabinet and will be laid on the Table of the House and debated.
  Mr. Piratin: Too late.
  Mr. Warbey: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I asked for guidance a few days ago and you gave a Ruling about our responsibility for trials in foreign countries. It now appears that the Foreign Secretary has enunciated a principle in regard to our interest in, and responsibility for, such matters which

  349
  differs from the Ruling you gave. I wonder if we could have your further considered Ruling on this matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that the Foreign Secretary said anything new. I thought the Question referred to foreign observers going to a trial.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary if it is not essential that, in the event of any warlike action by Communist Russia against the United States of America, we should do everything in our power to aid America?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot discuss the Pact now, but I am inclined to the view that when the Pact is completed on a satisfactory basis it will create the best conditions for discussing peace in the world.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    U.S.A. Surveyors (Pay)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now state the pay and allowances of U.S. surveyors employed in British Colonies; and whether he will say how the rates compare with those offered to British surveyors.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): None is at present employed. The proposals mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 7th December are still the subject of discussion with the United States authorities, and no rates of pay have yet been fixed.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Colonial Secretary consider offering the American terms to surveyors in Canada, where, I understand, surveyors are available?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question. There is, of course, in Canada regular machinery on behalf of the Colonial Office for the recruitment of this Service.
    Mr. Keeling: What about American terms?
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider trying to do something about surveyors in East Africa, which is so tremendously short of them?

    Africa (Drought)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what effect the drought in Africa, south of the Equator, is having on food crops; and what action is being taken against famine.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Governors of Nyasaland and of Northern Rhodesia have reported serious food shortages due to drought. The failure of the rains was more severe in the southern area of Nyasaland, but I am glad to say that the drought has broken and that general rains have fallen throughout the Protectorate, except in small areas in the extreme north and south. Growing crops have ceased to deteriorate, and the planting of supplementary crops and the replanting of grain is proceeding on a satisfatcory scale. Inquiries have been initiated in Washington to secure up to 15,000 tons of maize a month, to meet the needs of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the view of people on the spot, famine is now inevitable although the rains have come; and, in view of the inadequacy of rail facilities in certain areas, cannot steps be taken to provision the blacker spots by air?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The whole problem was under consideration by the three Governments concerned this week in order that provision should be made.

    Development Schemes
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what schemes have now been approved by the Colonial Development Corporation and by the Overseas Food Corporation in Colonial territories; and what consultations have taken place with the Colonial Governments concerned in each case.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As they have announced, the Colonial Development Corporation have decided to undertake schemes connected with the gold and timber industries in British Guiana and with food production in the Gambia. The only scheme of the Overseas Food Corporation in Colonial territories is the groundnut project in Tanganyika. There has been full consultation with the Colonial Governments concerned in respect of all these projects.
    Mr. Skinnard: Would the Secretary of State inform the House what steps have been taken in respect of British Honduras and the food schemes there?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The recommendations which have been made by the Evans Commission have been referred to the local government and discussions are now proceeding between the Corporation and the Government.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is it intended to have a separate subsidiary development corporation for British Honduras?
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir.

  EAST AFRICAN RAILWAYS (RAILS)
  Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the outstanding orders of steel rails for Tanganyika and Kenya; and to what extent have orders been met in the last six months.
  Mr. Creech Jones: There are outstanding orders for 4,580 tons of rails for the Tanganyika section of the East African Railways but none for the Kenya section. During the last six months, 1,500 tons of rails have been supplied for use in Tanganyika, and 5,500 for Kenya.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Having regard to the recent despatch of a large consignment of steel rails to Russia, will not the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that first priority is given in this respect to the needs of our Colonial territories?
  Mr. Creech Jones: That is a larger question so far as the Colonial Empire is concerned. As regards Tanganyika, the rate of flow is in accordance with the arrangements made by the contract.

  KENYA

    Slaughter Stocks (Movement)
    Brigadier Thorpasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reason for the Meat Marketing Board in Kenya prohibiting movement of slaughter stock from pastoral areas; if he can give an assurance that this prohibition is enforced on African producers
    352
    as well as European; and will he have the whole matter reconsidered.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that the prohibition on movement of slaughter stocks from pastoral areas, except under licence, is designed to ensure a fair and steady price for both producer and consumer without the intervention of middlemen, and to direct slaughter stocks to the main consumption areas while guarding against the spread of stock diseases. The regulations apply to African as well as European producers. They are in the interests of Kenya as a whole, and I see no reason to reconsider them.
    Brigadier Thorp: Is the Minister aware that Government officials in Kenya have stated that they cannot enforce this regulation on Africans?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is not my information, but, if the hon. and gallant Member has any new knowledge, I would be very glad to consider it.
    Brigadier Thorp: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there is no veterinary consideration on this at all, and that he is completely misinformed on both these points?

    Meat Supplies (Control)
    Brigadier Thorpasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent there is a black market in meat in Kenya.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no evidence that a black market in meat exists; though, owing to the practical difficulty of enforcing control within native areas there is some disparity between the prices paid to Africans for meat in the Nyanza and Kikuyu Districts on the one hand, and prices enforced by price control in the towns on the other hand. So far as I am aware, this does not apply in other districts.
    Brigadier Thorp: Is it not obvious from the reply that there is a black market? The right hon. Gentleman has said that prices cannot be enforced; will he also state what is the price per pound to the European and to the African?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question. The information I have from the territory is that the control is effective.

  WEST AFRICA (GROUNDNUT PRODUCTION)
  Mr. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been developed for rapidly increasing groundnut production in West Africa.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Following the recommendations of the West African Oilseeds Mission, plans for pilot schemes for the production of various crops, including groundnuts, are being considered by the Governments of the Gold Coast and Nigeria, and by the Colonial Development Corporation.
  Mr. Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend make any statement in regard to the proposal, which seems to be current in West Africa, to the effect that greater contributions could be made to groundnut production if the same kind of energy, effort and costs are put into West Africa as are being put into the East African groundnut scheme?
  Mr. Creech Jones: That is not the situation. The matter has been very carefully considered by the necessary services required by the Commission which visited West Africa, and also the facilities for certain pilot schemes had also to be studied. The matter has gone before the two Governments concerned and I hope some progress can be made very shortly.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Have the groundnuts of two years ago, which accumulated in West Africa, now been shifted?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Entirely?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in fact there are vast quantities of groundnuts still stacked around Kano?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I was in West Africa only a few weeks ago and saw vast quantities waiting, but that is the new crop.
  Mr. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been prepared for making the Lagos-Kano sector of the Nigerian railway a
  354
  double track to augment the present single track now found inadequate for the amount of groundnuts accumulating in Kano.
  Mr. Creech Jones: No plans have so far been made to this end. Apart from a short section just north of Lagos which may need special attention, the existing track will, so far as can be foreseen, carry all the traffic required for the evacuation of groundnuts.
  Mr. Cooper: Is not one of the chief causes of the hold-up in groundnuts production in West Africa the narrow track between Lagos and Kano? Could not my right hon. Friend give immediate priority consideration to this problem?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The essential difficulty is the limitation in regard to wagons and locomotives. It is not the size of the track.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that there is at present a serious accumulation of groundnuts awaiting movement?
  Mr. Creech Jones: This season's groundnuts are awaiting movement.
  Mr. Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the whole of last year's crop has been moved?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I should require notice of that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that I must have notice of that question but I can say that part of that crop has been removed.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (POST OFFICE, LUSAKA)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken to end the policy of racial segregation of customers in the post office at Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia; and if he is aware that the African and European sections of the counter are separated by a thin partition which could easily be removed.
  Mr. Creech Jones: A new building is to be constructed as soon as possible to accommodate the Lusaka Town Post Office. It will provide common facilities in place of the existing African and European sections, which are at present

  355
  housed in entirely separate portions of the building now occupied. There is a sub-post office at Ridgeway consisting of one room temporarily rented in private premises. I understand that structural alterations are to be made shortly by the lessor and these will enable common facilities to be provided.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the local authorities are not merely waiting until this new building is constructed before removing the partition, in order to perpetuate a policy of segregation?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The authorities assure me that they are very alive to the enforcement of a policy of non-discrimination.
  Earl Winterton: Is not this one of the questions which come within the purview of the Legislative Assembly of Northern Rhodesia, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the white population there are getting more and more annoyed by being treated like children by certain hon. Members of this House?
  Mr. Driberg:If my Question were not in Order would it not have been refused at the Table?

  NYASALAND (MASS EDUCATION)
  17. Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons the mass education project in Nyasaland has been abandoned.
  Mr. Creech Jones: This project was a pilot scheme and it was unsuitable for extension. It is now proposed to do mass education work on a more comprehensive basis and to continue at Mponela the mass literacy work and the work among the female community. There is also the possibility of establishing a co-operative society in the area.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep disappointment that was caused to African and British workers in this scheme by the changed arrangements, and could not a full and sensible explanation have been given at the time?
  Mr. Creech Jones: This was some experimental work which, I think, was
  356
  necessary in all the circumstances. The work generally is not being abandoned but more comprehensive plans are being worked out in Nyasaland at the present moment.
  Mr. Lipson: Who is to be responsible for this new mass education?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The new scheme will come under the complete control and supervision of the local government.
  Mr. Lipson: Who is to pay for it?

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

    British Soldiers (Conduct)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British soldiers stationed in Malaya have been charged with crimes against civilians; and what have been the offences for which they have been charged.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am consulting the Malayan Governments and will write to my hon. Friend when I have their replies.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman also include the figure of how many Malayan civilians have been charged with crimes against British soldiers?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have not got that figure.
    Earl Winterton: In order to remove from the British Army in Malaya the stigma that there has been an undue number of crimes, will the Secretary of State make this information available to the House, as some of us on this side of the House take an acute interest in this matter, and are not prepared to allow an attack on British soldiers to go unanswered?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I associate myself with the noble Lord's supplementary question. The conduct of the troops has been very good indeed.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the reputation of the British Army stands high enough in the world to make it unnecessary to hide or whitewash anything which takes place concerning individual soldiers?
    Mr. Hughes: Has not my right hon. Friend admitted that privates of the Sea-forth Highlanders have been found guilty in Singapore of crimes of violence and have been sentenced to be flogged? There are other cases. Why should these questions not be asked?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Where there is any great body of men there are bound to be incidents.

    Banned Films
    21. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now state how many British films have been banned at Singapore since 1945; and what are the names of these films.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that the British films which were withdrawn or refused exhibition in 1948 were "Captain Boycott," "Against the Wind," "Night Beat," "I became a Criminal," "Good Time Girl," and "No Orchids for Miss Blandish." I have no information covering the years 1945, 1946 and 1947.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Secretary of State assure us that "Hamlet" is not on the list?
    Mr. Piratin: Is it because the Malayans are too civilised or because they are uncivilised that they cannot be allowed to see "No Orchids for Miss Blandish"?

    Communist Activities
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the improvement of the situation in Malaya, he will consider what steps can be taken to meet any future Communist attempts in the country either by reorganisation of the labour unions, by welfare schemes among the workers or by land settlement among the Malays.
    Mr. Creech Jones: All these measures are receiving the close attention of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, and much has already been accomplished, but I am bringing my hon. Friend's question to the notice of the High Commissioner.
    Mr. Philips Price: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to counter Communism in South-East Asia is to settle the Malayan peasants on the
    358
    land so that they are not entirely dependent for their livelihood on work in the plantations?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That opens up a much bigger question.

    Security Forces (Officers)
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to restore peaceful conditions in Malaya, he has sought the cooperation of Lieut.-Colonel Spencer Chapman or other officers who served with guerilla forces in that country during the Japanese occupation.
    Mr. Creech Jones: A number of these officers have been serving with the security Forces in Malaya.

    British Families (Accommodation)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that in Singapore a tenant is not allowed by law to let his house whilst on home leave nor leave it empty, the result of which is that British families taking home leave have to store their furniture and have no home when they return to their duty; and if he will introduce legislation to overcome this difficulty.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir, but if the hon. Member will give me further particulars I will look into this matter.

    Detainees
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the 5,291 persons detained in Malaya and Singapore without charge on 21st January have made an objection to the Advisory Committees; how many of these have been released; and whether the proceedings and findings of the Advisory Committees have been made public.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am consulting the High Commissioner and the Governor and will write to the hon. Member after I have received their replies.

  GOLD COAST (COCOA TREE DISEASE)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the report of the U.N.O. scientists that

  359
  the swollen-shoot disease threatens the very existence of the Gold Coast cocoa industry, and that the cutting-out of diseased trees is the only measure known for its control, he now proposes to resume the compulsory cutting-out abandoned a year ago; and what staff he estimates will be required to enforce the cutting-out of the 50 million trees already infected and the additional 15 million infected yearly.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The present action of the Gold Coast Government is designed to persuade the farmers of the absolute necessity of cutting out diseased trees on an intensified scale. The operation is of course a considerable one but the question of the use of compulsory powers does not immediately arise. The Gold Coast Government is actively engaged in working out the requirements of staff and materials for a greatly intensified campaign with a view to presenting the plans for such a campaign to the Legislative Council. Meanwhile I am not in a position to give details, but I can assure the hon. Member that the gravity of the problem is appreciated by the Gold Coast Government who will do all that is practically possible to arrest this evil.
  Mr. Keeling: As the Secretary of State said that the question of compulsion did not immedately arise, may I ask him whether he is aware that the U.N.O. scientists said that immediate action on a huge scale is imperative? In view of the political agitation against cutting-out, what hope is there of the cocoa industry being saved from ruin unless compulsion is resumed with a firm hand?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Compulsory cutting is one thing and operation with the goodwill of the farmers and their general confidence in the Government is another. It is imperative, in this difficult political situation, that the Government should proceed along the lines upon which they are at present proceeding.
  Mr. Sorensen: Are not the increased rate of compensation and educational methods already having a distinctly desirable result?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the answer which he
  360
  has given today is almost identical with the answer he gave months ago on this subject, that his educative efforts have been completely unsuccessful, and that he will not achieve any results unless he again resorts to compulsory powers?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I do not accept the assertion in the hon. Member's supplementary question. I have always pointed out that it was necessary for the international commission to report, and for the Government in the Gold Coast to consider that report. The Government are now doing that and taking appropriate action.
  Mr. Bossom: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the staff on the spot are sufficient in number, or are they still very short of people, as was the case some time ago?
  Mr. Creech Jones: That is one of the problems to which the local Government are addressing themselves. An increasing number of person are available for the work.

  MALTA (ENTRY PERMITS)
  Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why it is still considered essential for entry permits to be obtained by would be travellers to Malta; and in view of the delay occasioned by obtaining them from Malta, why such permits, if essential, cannot be made available in London.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As Malta is a fortress certain safeguards are essential from a security aspect. Also the extreme shortage of accommodation resulting from war damage necessitates control over the entry of visitors which cannot be exercised satisfactorily from the United Kingdom. The possibility is being examined of affording some relief from this control in order to ensure that no obstacle will be placed in the way of bona fide tourists and others whose entry will be beneficial to Malta, and I expect to receive details from the Governor shortly.

  MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' SALARIES)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Conciliation Board

  361
  appointed in Mauritius in August, 1947, to consider the salaries of Government primary school teachers has not yet begun its work; and what machinery the Governor of Mauritius is prepared to use to decide on a revision of primary school teachers' salaries.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Conciliation Board, to which the hon. Member refers, was adjourned sine die at the srequest of the Mauritius Government Teachers' Union when a Commission of Inquiry into salaries at present paid to primary school teachers was set up. The recommendations of the Commission are under consideration by the Executive Council, and will be submitted to the Legislature as early as possible.
  Mr. Skinnard: In view of the considerable delay that has occurred in setting up any machinery to resolve this dispute, is not the union entitled to the alternative machinery of the Trades Disputes Ordinance No. 68 of 1947, that is to say, the ordinary industrial disputes ordinance?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot answer that Question. I can only say that reference was made to the request of the teachers' union itself.

  UGANDA (HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME)
  Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can report any progress on the proposed Owen River hydro-electric scheme in Uganda.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Tenders for all civil engineering works connected with the dam and power station are expected to be received by June, 1949, and it is hoped to have contractors working on the site by September, 1949. Substantial quantities of machinery, materials and equipment have been ordered.
  Mr. Skeffington: Can the Minister say whether or not the Egyptian Government are in any way interested in this scheme?
  Mr. Creech Jones: There have obviously been discussions with the Egyptian Government, and we are now awaiting the result of those discussions.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS

    Circular Despatches
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many circulars have been sent to the Governor of the Leeward Islands during the past nine months; and if he will give a list of the subjects with which they dealt.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Between 1st May, 1948, and 31st January, 1949, 143 circular despatches were sent to Colonial Governors including the Governor of the Leeward Islands. They dealt with the following subjects: Agriculture and economic, 15; Communications, 19; Colonial Service, 18; Education, 13; Information, 10; International, 12; Security, 15; Social Services, 16; and Miscellaneous, 25.
    Mr. Swingler: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied that all these circulars were really necessary?
    Mr. Creech Jones: These circulars are absolutely essential in order that local Governments may be kept well informed of events at this end in respect to the problems they themselves are handling. On questions of Colonial service, economic control, communications, and so on, this supply of information is vital to ensure the efficient working of Colonial Government.
    Mr. Stanley: Would not a similar question addressed to any of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues show that the unfortunate people of this country are afflicted by a far greater number of circulars from other Departments of the Government?

    Grants in Aid
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants in aid have been paid to the Government of the Leeward Islands; and for what purposes during the past nine months.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No such grants have been made during the past nine months. The Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote this year provides for a grant in aid of £20,000 for Montserrat, and part or all of this may be issued before the 31st March. Some£150,000 has already been spent in the Leewards under the C.D. & W. Act, 1945, pending the receipt and approval of the Colony's Ten-Year Plan.

    Governor (Consultation)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date the Governor of the Leeward Islands was recalled by him to London; and why.
    Mr. Frederic Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the recall of the Governor of the Leeward Islands.
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason it has been found necessary to recall the Governor of the Leeward Islands.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I asked the Governor on 17th January to come to London for consultation on some of the problems of the Leeward Islands.
    Major Guy Lloyd: In those circumstances, could we have a complete report of the speech of the Governor which has been referred to, and to which apparently some exception has been taken, placed in the Library of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have not myself referred to the speech of Lord Baldwin, and it has no relevance to the Question on the Paper.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it not unusual to recall a Governor for consultation when he has only been in his territory for a few months, unless for some very urgent reason? Secondly, may I ask whether, in view of the necessary urgency of the consultation which the right hon. Gentleman desired, the method of travel selected by the Governor has not been rather dilatory?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I appreciate the second supplementary question, but I understand that, on account of his health, it was impossible for Lord Baldwin to travel to this country by air and he took the most expeditous way available to him. In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, during the last eight or nine months a number of important matters have emerged in respect of the administration of the Leewards and these problems cannot very well be discussed by correspondence, by despatch. They can only be properly discussed personally with the Governor.
    Mr. Cecil Poole: Could not the urgent reason be the complete failure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), when he was Colonial Secretary, to do anything at all for the Leeward Islands?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would the Minister say whether the Governor was recalled because he was quite unable adequately to digest the enormous number of circulars sent to him?
    Mr. Driberg: Could not my right hon. Friend put a stop to the various rumours and speculations by simply giving an assurance that the Governor will be returning to the Leeward Islands to his post after the consultation?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have, through the Colonial Office, issued a statement as to the reason for Lord Baldwin coming to this country. I have made it perfectly clear that there are a number of administrative problems which must be discussed with him, and there the matter must rest.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask if there is any chance of any of us being present at this first interview?
    Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend answer my question? Can he give that assurance?
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his attempts to get this matter put right through his Department are not receiving anything like the same notice in the Press as the rumours against the Governor?
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend give the assurance that I asked for, that Lord Baldwin will be returning, as Governor, to the Leeward Islands?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I can only answer my hon. Friend by saying that it is normal in the administration of the Territories for the Governors to come to this country and discuss their problems with the Secretary of State. I am not at this stage going to pre-judge the future in this case, nor would I do so in the case of any other Governor who was invited to give information in regard to his administration.
    Mr. Stanley: Is not it a fact that in the normal case of a Governor coming back for consultation the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty at

    365
    all in giving a definite answer to the question whether he is going back or not? Does not the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question show that in fact there is something more in this than the normal recall for consultation?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Creech Jones: If the House wants an answer: when problems are raised or emerge in regard to the administration of any territory, either they have to be settled by correspondence or by personal interview. In regard to the problems which I wish to discuss with Lord Baldwin, I am not in a position to form any judgment whatever until I have had these discussions, and accordingly, whatever these discussions may lead to I am completely unable at his stage to make any statement.
    Mr. Stanley: Are we to understand that the question of Lord Baldwin's return to the Territory depends on the result of the consultation he is to have with the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Creech Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in any group of discussions with the Colonial Secretary one can never foresee the outcome of those discussions until the whole problem in regard to the Territory concerned has been considered, and I am not, at this stage, going to state what will be the outcome of these discussions.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, when a Governor comes home for consultation in the normal course, he goes back again, and whether his recall is normal in both those respects?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Swingler: Will my right hon. Friend say something in order to kill the rumours which are circulating; is he not aware of the rumour which has been circulated that Lord Baldwin is being recalled in order to be sacked as a result of the representations of the sugar barons?
    Mr. Creech Jones: All I can say is that that is absolutely untrue. There have been no representations to me by the planters for the recall of Lord Baldwin, nor have I taken umbrage at the speech
    366
    which has been reproduced in a number of newspapers which it is alleged is the cause of my summoning Lord Baldwin to London.

    Hospital Facilities
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what hospital facilities exist in the Leeward Islands; and what is the number of beds per head of the population.
    Mr. Creech Jones: General hospitals in Antigua, St. Kitts, Nevis and Montserrat and cottage hospitals in St. Kitts, Anguilla and the Virgin Islands provide between them one bed for every 334 members of the Colony's population. In addition, leper homes in Antigua and St. Kitts provide for about 100 inmates, and homes for the aged and infirm are maintained by Government in Antigua, St. Kitts and Montserrat. The Leeward Islands' Development Plan provides for a new hospital in Antigua to replace the existing building at Holberton. The scheme is being examined in the Presidency and the Federal Architect's report on this important project is now awaited.

    Prisons
    Mr. Draysonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what methods of chaining are used in prisons in the Leeward Islands; and what reports he has received on this matter from the Governor.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have received no reports on this matter from the Governor. Irons are not used in the Leeward Islands as a punishment. Leg irons are permitted under the prison rules and regulations in restraint of a prisoner who is violent or who has escaped or attempted to escape. My policy is to abolish the use of chains and leg irons as a means of restraint in all prisons throughout the West Indies and a conference of West Indian prison officers held in Barbados in May, 1948, agreed on the progressive reduction in their use.
    Mr. Drayson: Will the Minister confirm that this matter was specifically referred to in Lord Baldwin's speech and was he, when he made these comments, acting under instructions from the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Creech Jones: No instructions are given to Colonial Governors in regard to their speeches to the legislatures.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Are leg irons and chains used in the West Indies on women as well as men?

  WEST INDIES

    Commissions
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Commissions have reported on conditions in the West Indies; and what steps have been taken to implement them.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I give the information asked for in respect of Commissions appointed since 1938.

    1. The West India Royal Commission, appointed in 1938 (Cmd. 6174). A statement of action taken on the recommendation of this Commission was presented to Parliament in 1945 (Cmd. 6656).

    2. The West Indies Committee of the Commission on Higher Education in the Colonies (Cmd. 6654). The University College of the West Indies was inaugurated last year as recommended by this Committee.

    3. The British Guiana-British Honduras Settlement Commission (Cmd. 7533). The recommendations of this Commission are under close examination, and I would invite the hon. Member's attention to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on 17th December, 1948.

    There have also been a number of specialist inquiries into matters affecting particular Colonies.
    Sir Peter Macdonald: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House can expect to have the Soulbury Report on conditions in the Leeward Islands and other islands?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question, but I hope it will be available very shortly.
    Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the Clement Jones Report on shipping in the West Indies which makes a specific request for greater refrigeration capacity and inter-island communications?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes. I replied to that question on Friday. The matter is receiving attention, as is also the provision of cold storage arrangements in the Island under their development plan.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Commissions are now sitting to report on the West Indies; and on what subjects.
    Mr. Creech Jones: A recent Commission studied the sugar industry in Trinidad and in the Leewards and is now preparing its reports in London. Another Commission is at work on the same industry in British Guiana. The West Indian Standing Closer Association Committee of the local Legislatures is at present preparing a practical scheme for federation, while two associated inquiries are proceeding into a customs union and the unification of the public services.

    Jamaica (Shipping)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many banana-carrying ships were owned by Jamaica in April, 1939; how many are now so owned; how many Jamaican vessels were sunk in the late war; and how many vessels have now been handed to the Jamaican Government since the cessation of hostilities.
    Mr. Creech Jones: All ships which carry bananas from Jamaica to this country are privately owned. The greater part of the crop is carried by Messrs. Elders and Fyffes, a United Kingdom company, whose ships are registered here. The remainder are carried by the Jamaica Banana Producers' Steamship Company Limited, which owned four ships in 1939, of which three were lost in the war. They are still operating the remaining ship.
    Mr. Marshall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether His Majesty's Government have chartered a new refrigerator ship for Jamaica and, if so, whether there is any subsidy involved?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware of any subsidy, but there is an additional ship on the West Indian route.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is that additional ship a new ship from a Belgian yard chartered to the Jamaica Banana Producers' Association?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is under consideration, I think.

  SARAWAK (MR. ANTHONY BROOKE)
  Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies till when he proposes that Mr. Anthony Brooke shall be excluded from Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on 28th July, 1948.
  Mr. Pickthorn: if it is not now possible to give a date on which this ban may cease, is it possible to indicate what conditions would suffice to cause the end of the ban?
  Mr. Creech Jones: There has been some recent discussion with Mr. Anthony Brooke himself, but the Governor and the Commissioner General both state that at the moment it would be ill-advised to remove the ban.
  Sir T. Moore: Since when has it been the policy of the British Government to prevent British subjects entering British territory?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I think it will be appreciated in this case that Mr. Anthony Brooke is something more than an ordinary British subject and, as he has proclaimed the intention of stimulating agitation in favour of his restoration to the throne, it would be exceedingly unfortunate, in our judgment, if he were allowed to enter the territory.
  Sir T. Moore: Totalitarianism.
  Mr. Teeling: If Mr. Anthony Brooke were to give certain promises to the Commissioner General that he would undertake certain things—to do or not to do—would he then be allowed in; in other words, is it not really up to the Government now to state the conditions on which they would be willing to let him go in?
  Mr. Creech Jones: There has just been some further correspondence with Mr. Anthony Brooke, but the situation mentioned by the hon. Member has not yet arisen.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he draws any
  370
  colour line in this matter and whether Mr. Anthony Brooke's treatment is due to the fact of his being white?

  ARMED FORCES

    Recruiting (Prime Minister's Broadcast)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence how many recruits were obtained as a result of the Prime Minister's recent broadcast speech.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It must be obvious to my hon. Friend that it is not possible to give an answer to such a Question in relation to my right hon. Friend's broadcast on 19th January or to isolate the results of this single feature of the recruiting campaign.
    Mr. Hughes: Could not the Minister give an indication whether the figure went up or down: has he not got control of the Secret Service which could find out?

    Training Camps (Paid Leave)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the fact that nine months have elapsed since the setting up of the British Electricity Authority, he has yet been able to ascertain what arrangements have been made by that body for the grant of paid leave to its employees for the purpose of attending Territorial Army and other Auxiliary Forces camps.
    Mr. Alexander: The British Electricity Authority and the Area Boards have this matter under active consideration and hope to reach a decision in good time for this year's camps. Last year, as the hon. Member will be aware, they followed the practice of the individual undertakings which they took over on 1st April.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not intolerable that a publicly owned body should hesitate for so long to do what the Government are asking private employers to do, and will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power with a view to issuing a direction to this dilatory body?
    Mr. Alexander: Of course, I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, and representations have been made. I am quite certain that we shall get a decision fairly soon, but they have to negotiate with a number of trade unions and also three joint councils, and that may take a little time. The hon. Member can be assured that we have brought strong representations to bear.
    Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the anomalies and differences which now exist between all the various industries are regularised, so that people may know where they are, because at present the arrangements vary?
    Mr. Alexander: I am not aware that there is any special direction in which there are grave differences between the public bodies, apart from those to which hon. Members have drawn attention.

  SWEETS (DISTRIBUTION)
  Mr. Peter Robertsasked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that his Department will not in the future sell sweets to be sold off the ration to a distributor without first obtaining competitive tenders from at least two distributors.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): We expect that, in future, most salvaged sweets will be in small quantities which can be sold under the dispensation granted in Article 4 of the Salvage Goods Order, 1948. If my Department have any to dispose of, we shall no doubt invite tenders, provided that the condition of the sweets warrants it.
  Mr. Roberts: Is it not the policy of the Department, where monopolistic powers of this kind are used, that no suspicion of preferential treatment should occur, and would not the right hon. Lady agree that the giving of contracts with considerable profits attached to them but without any tenders at all is not a practice which should be followed by public Departments?
  Dr. Summerskill: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. The only time we departed from it was when the sweets
  372
  were in such a condition that they might further deteriorate, and it was necessary to take quick action.
  Mr. Tiffany: Could my right hon. Friend bring pressure to bear on the Minister so that all sweets can be sold off the ration, and not just a few?

  EXPORT MARKETS (GERMAN COMPETITION)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GRANVILLE SHARP:
  103.—To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him by United Kingdom industries concerning German competition in export markets; and whether he will make a statement.
  At the end of Questions
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 103, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made reference. I apologise to the House for the length of the answer.
  Representations on the subject of German competition in the export market show that concern is widespread, and I welcome the opportunity of making a statement on the whole subject. It is, I believe, appreciated that the volume of German exports must increase rapidly in the next few years if Germany is to be able to pay its way and cease to be a burden upon the United Kingdom and the United States taxpayer. Apprehension about the development of German exports has centred round two main problems. The fear has been expressed, in the first place, that under the pressure of the need to export, the Germans may have recourse to so-called Schachtian methods of promoting their export, multiple exchange rates, special subsidies, and other unfair methods of sales promotion which were a familiar feature of the Nazi regime. In the second place, it is argued that German goods can be sold at a lower level than ours because of the lower German wage rates, which will, it is suggested, enable German exporters to offer goods at a lower price even on a fair competitive basis.
  Until very recently, the price of German exports was approved in each case

  373
  by the Joint Export/Import Agency, who were guided not by the German cost of production but by the world price level for the particular commodity. There was no single conversion rate for the mark and it was not possible to relate production costs to world prices. A large number of contracts concluded for commodities priced in this way are still outstanding and much of the trade to which exception has been taken has undoubtedly taken place on the basis of such prices. The uniform conversion rate of 30 cents (United States currency) to one Deutschemark was fixed last summer, and contracts entered into since that date have been at prices determined by the cost of production (including profit margins), converted at that rate. A number of commodities, at prices so determined, can be sold only with great difficulty on the export market, and in certain cases it would have been impossible to honour old contracts without a special concession in this matter of the conversion rate. The German people's car is, perhaps, the outstanding example of this; the conversion rate which was used before currency reform was 17 cents to one Reichsmark; at this rate, as hon. Members will no doubt be aware, the car is leaving the factory at £200 and selling in Continental markets at a little under £350 retail. On the basis of an exchange rate of 30 cents the price of the car would be nearly doubled, and it would not be competitive. When, therefore, existing contracts have been worked off, unless there is a very substantial reduction in the cost of production the car should cease to be as threatening a competitor as it appears to be at present.
  The hard core of the problem consists of those commodities which are competitive at the 30 cents rate. It is thought that these industries, among others, are competitive—chemicals, glass, clay and stone products, certain types of machinery, including heavy engineering and heavy electrical equipment, shipbuilding, scientific instruments, and cement. It is from goods of this category that we must expect continued competition in the future. For the present, there are a number of factors which may reduce the impact of German exports.
  In the first place, prices in Germany have still not settled down after the upheaval of currency reform last June. Many prices, and the use to which many
  374
  commodities may be put, are uncontrolled and this means that stocks of many industrial materials cost much more to replace than before currency reform, and also scarce and important materials are being dissipated and put to all kinds of uses.
  On the subject of wages, the wages stop has been removed since last summer and a 15 per cent. increase has been sanctioned. So far, about 50 to 60 per cent. of the workers have benefited from this. It is true, however, that average earnings in Germany are about 60 per cent. of our own. Against this advantage must be set the fact that German productivity is still much below ours.
  With regard to the control of export prices, and, in particular, to the use of "unfair" devices to reduce prices, it is our policy to do all we can to prevent a revival in Germany of all forms of practices in international trade generally recognised as being unfair; and it is our intention that the Occupation Statute which is now being prepared will reserve to the Military Governors powers to that end. In this connection, I may add that I shall be glad to take up and investigate cases where German goods are sold at prices substantially below the world level (and I should point out that this is not necessarily the same as the United Kingdom level), or cases where there is evidence to suggest the use of unfair practices in the promotion of German exports.
  Mr. Jennings: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is essential to keep closely in touch with manufacturers in this country in order to see that this menace does not increase, and will he give an undertaking that he will be constantly in touch with manufacturers in this country?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I have already consulted the main trade bodies—the F.B.I. and so on—and last week received an important deputation from the engineering industry. I shall be prepared to receive representations from any other industry which feels that it might be affected by unfair trade practices.
  Mr. P. Roberts: In the list given by the President of the Board of Trade, there was no mention of cutlery. Is he

  375
  not aware that, in India, Sheffield orders have been lost through drastic underselling from Germany, of which I could give him particulars?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that particular case. I think it was one which resulted from some of the factors which I have mentioned, and they are now disappearing. I should be very glad to keep the situation regarding cutlery in mind if the hon. Gentleman will send me any information.
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: The President mentioned the Deutsche Volkswagen Could he give any idea of the number of these cars which would still come in the cheaper category?
  Mr. Wilson: Not without notice, but I have said that there is a number of contracts continuing for a short period.
  Mr. Albu: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will not consider whether the dilemma in which we are placed in Germany in our endeavour to reduce the burden on our own taxpayers will not involve us in rather more detailed integration of the economies and industries of Germany with those of this country, and that mere restriction of German industry will not provide a long-term solution?
  Mr. Wilson: I think that is an entirely different question, which requires careful consideration.
  Mr. David Eccles: While recognising that German industrial recovery is essential to the recovery of Western Europe, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of the fact that, to meet this competition, he must remove the obstacles to British business men selling our goods abroad? Will he press the Chancellor to be more liberal with foreign exchange for journeys abroad, and also ask the Inland Revenue to be more sympathetic in dealing with expenses accounts?
  Mr. Wilson: While I certainly would not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the question of expenses accounts, I should have thought that the export figures which I announced yesterday would suggest that private enterprise is
  376
  not being held up by the Government in the export direction.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that nothing is done to prevent the re-export of German production from this country, in which a considerable trade is now being built up here? Will he see that our Consulates throughout the world are given this information, because, in many cases, it is the threat of German competition which prevents buyers from buying our goods, rather than the actual date of delivery of the goods?
  Mr. Wilson: I will see that my statement and any further statements made on this subject are widely circulated. Regarding re-exports, where these are in the general interests of Western Europe and do not prejudice our own position, we shall certainly encourage them.
  Mr. Osborne: I think the right hon. Gentleman told the House that German productivity was much below ours. Will he say how much it is below ours, and whether it is due to their equipment or to the fact that they are working fewer hours?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member must know all the reasons affecting German productivity. I think that recent calculations suggest that, certainly so far as the engineering industries are concerned, they are about 60 or 70 per cent. of our productivity.
  Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the extent of this German competition and whether, in point of fact, it is yet, or is likely to be in the near future, a serious menace to the success of our own export drive?
  Mr. Wilson: It has certainly not reached the dimensions where it is a serious menace to our export drive, but the reappearance of German competition in a number of markets has caused fears, perhaps out of all proportion to the goods involved. We do not believe that anything happening now will seriously prejudice our export drive, and, as I have said, many of the exports which are competitive at the moment will soon cease to be so.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (BRITISH DELEGATION)
  Mr. Churchillasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as to the method by which the British Delegation to the European Assembly is to be chosen, and whether he can assure the House that no attempt will be made to confine it to Government nominees or Members of the Socialist Party.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I can only repeat the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 7th February. No decision has yet been taken on the composition of the British Delegation to the Council of Europe. The Permanent Commission of the Brussels Treaty have not yet completed their examination of detailed plans. When they have done so a Governmental Conference will have to be convened at which it is hoped that other European countries besides the Brussels Treaty Powers will assist in the framing of a constitution for the Council of Europe. Recommendations of this Conference will be referred back to Governments, and His Majesty's Government will only then be in a position to report to the House. The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, understand that I cannot make a statement now about decisions which can only be taken at a later stage.
  Mr. Churchill: Could not the right hon. Gentleman at any rate make it quite clear that his Government have no intention of committing either of the two improprieties mentioned in the last part of my Question, of trying to monopolise representation of this body by members of the Socialist Party or by nominees of His Majesty's present Government?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is only repeating, with certain other words added, the Question which he has already asked, and to which I have already replied.
  Mr. Churchill: Which I have already asked and to which the right hon. Gentleman refuses to reply. The right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, be so kind as to tell us how long he expects this present procedure which he has described, to delay the settlement of this issue?
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of delay. I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman the processes now going forward with regard to the formation of the Council of Europe, and I am explaining to him that he is premature in asking for a decision now. The answer will come in due course.
  Mr. Churchill: All the other Governments have already taken the particular decision to which I have referred and are not monopolising, through a Government majority, the entire representation upon this body. I was hoping to relieve the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, of which he is the head, of the reproach and stigma which rests upon them of being unable to give an assurance which any decent and honest-minded Government would give.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is again mistaken. As I explained in my reply, it is hoped that other Governments besides those of the Brussels Treaty Powers will be taking part, but they have certainly not yet come to their decision.
  Mr. Churchill: I would inform the House that we shall not be able to await this dilatory procedure without a Debate in the House. May I give the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House notice now, that tomorrow, on the Business, I shall ask him whether the week after he can provide an opportunity for a full day's Debate upon this subject? We do not mean to be kept waiting about, and, besides, we wish to relieve the Government of the shame that rests upon them.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the Prime Minister mean to imply that the constitution of all national delegations shall be based on the same principles, and, if not, will he consider the desirability of arranging that the British delegation shall reflect the proportions of parties in this House with some slight bias in favour of Independents?
  The Prime Minister: No decision has been come to on this matter, one way or the other.
  Mr. Churchill: Is it not possible to come to a decision on the simple question of decent behaviour or impropriety?
  The Prime Minister: No question of decent behaviour or impropriety arises in the fact that a Government decision is taken at the proper time and not when the right hon. Gentleman wants it.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend see that the members of the British Delegation are persons who adopt a constructive attitude towards the reconstruction of Europe, and are not people who are decrying Great Britain's reconstruction?
  Sir P. Macdonald: Is not the Prime Minister aware of the fact that other Governments concerned in Europe, who are also partners in this Council, have already decided that it is to be on an all-party basis? Why cannot this Government make up their minds on the same thing?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is only repeating in more solicitous language, what the right hon. Gentleman asked.
  Mr. Gallacher: If the right hon. Gentleman should decide to make this delegation on an all-party basis, and if I succeed in infiltrating, will he give me his pledge that I shall not be purged before the delegation leaves?

LOSS OF NAVAL PINNACE (INQUIRY)
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I wish, Mr. Speaker, with permission, to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, a motor pinnace containing fifty-one liberty men from H.M.S. "Illustrious" was sunk on the night of 17th October last in Portland harbour with a loss of 29 lives. All the circumstances of this disaster have been thoroughly sifted by two boards of inquiry, and it has also been possible to raise the pinnace to investigate the cause of its sinking.
The weather when the pinnace left Weymouth pier shortly after 10 p.m. for H.M.S. "Illustrious," which was moored in Portland harbour, was rough, but had not varied appreciably since noon. During this time the pinnace had made several trips to and from the ship to Weymouth and Portland and was manned by the same crew throughout. The Commanding Officer of H.M.S. "Illustrious"
380
had carefully considered whether the state of the weather justified the continued use of liberty boats for recreational purposes, and the Admiralty are satisfied that the decision to allow their use was the right one. The whole boat's crew had been given special instruction in boat handling before leaving Portsmouth and had run this boat with success under varying conditions of tide and weather for some weeks.
The immediate causes of the disaster were the overloading of the boat, which should not have contained more than 40 men, and the apparent failure to reduce speed or to turn back to Weymouth pier when the boat encountered rougher water on coming out of the lee of the breakwater and entering Portland harbour. At this point the boat was steered directly into a head sea and foundered when at a distance of only 50 yards from H.M.S. "Illustrious." Despite the utmost exertions by rescue parties from the parent ship and other ships in the harbour, whose boats conducted unflagging searches until all hope of further rescues had to be bandoned, I regret to say that it was only possible to recover 23 of the occupants of the pinnace, and of these one died without regaining consciousness. It is possible that failure to make full use of the canopies which are provided in these boats for protection from the weather was a contributory cause of the accident, but it is doubtful whether the disaster would have been prevented had the additional canopies been rigged.
With great regret, the Admiralty have reached the conclusion that the responsibility for the accident must be laid at the door of the officer in charge of the boat who, unfortunately, lost his life. To prevent any misunderstanding owing to the publicity which has been given to this accident, I should like to say that expert examination of the pinnace after raising revealed no defects which could have contributed to the accident. A small leak in the after part of the boat was of trifling consequence. The officer in charge was well aware of it and had caused the boat to be baled out before leaving Weymouth pier.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat the expression of the deep sympathy of the Board of Admiralty with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this deplorable accident.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the hon. Gentleman associate the Opposition with the sympathy expressed to the relatives of all those who suffered in this disaster, including the family of the officer in charge who at the time of the disaster behaved with great personal courage?
Mr. Edwards: I shall be very happy to associate the whole House with the sentiments of the Board of Admiralty.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: In arriving at the conclusion as to responsibility which the Government have announced, have the Government been guided by any official court of inquiry or court martial?
Mr. Edwards: We have had two boards of inquiry into this matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.53 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The main purpose of this Bill is to seek statutory authority for items of expenditure arising out of measures included in the agricultural expansion programme which was launched in August, 1947, and which was designed to increase the output of our own farms by something like—100 million per annum by 1952. We are also taking advantage of this opportunity to make a number of desirable amendments to existing legislation which are designed either to help promote efficiency or to bring that legislation into line with modern requirements.
  I feel confident that, just as the House supported the expansion programme 18 months ago, so will it be ready to give its approval to a Second Reading of this Bill. The expansion programme is an important contribution not only to European recovery but, at the same time, to our own recovery, and the passing of this Bill will, I believe, afford further encouragement to farmers, workers and landowners in the great task which they have undertaken. Two of the main themes in this programme are to secure a greater output of milk, meat and eggs and to secure a greater self-sufficiency in homegrown animal feedingstuffs, and of course there is also the desire to save dollars. To that end, in addition to higher prices, three special forms of financial assistance were offered for which we now seek Parliamentary authority. The first was the calf rearing subsidy, which is dealt with in Clauses 1 to 3; the second is the free artificial insemination service from colour-marking beef bulls, which is dealt with in Clause 4; and the third is financial assistance for approved schemes for the conservation of grass and forage crops, which is dealt with in Clause 5.
  We are all conscious of our small meat ration and the uncertainty of some of our overseas supplies. Throughout the war years, and I believe quite rightly, milk was given a very high priority for whatever feedingstuffs we had available. This

  383
  inevitably meant a diminishing interest in beef production for which we had been famous all over the world. When the Government decided that more beef as well as more milk were required we felt that we could not rely solely on a higher price for fat cattle to reverse the wartime trend. To a large extent breeders of calves do not themselves carry on their animals to maturity. It is common practice over very wide areas to rear calves to the yearling stage and then to sell them to other farmers to fatten and finish them off. It seemed, therefore, essential to us to give a fillip to the breeder of calves, particularly steer calves, to rear them instead of sending them for premature slaughter; that would mean more meat and milk within the five-year programme.
  This subsidy is already having good effects, perhaps not the over-all effect most of us would have desired, but none the less it is having some good effects; for the United Kingdom on the 4th September, 1948, showed an increase of over 20 per cent. in the number of calves under one year old compared with a year previously. This is the answer, of course, to those who thought that the subsidy was unduly expensive in terms of the number of extra calves reared.
  Mr. Alpass: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact number of calves?
  Mr. Williams: The argument advanced previously was that to secure an increase of 369,000 calves in the United Kingdom it looked, on the face of it, bad business to pay a subsidy on calves which would have been reared anyhow. That, of course, ignores the fact that, had there been no calf subsidy, to secure an increase in the number of calves the price of fat cattle would have had to be increased. Even then there was no guarantee at all that it would not cost us much more in terms of money to achieve the same object. However, it is a reasonably fair argument, and I want to tell the House that although the subsidy will help to build up dairy herds and give us the milk we require, and will help to abolish milk rationing, I should personally prefer to see an increase in the quantity of milk by better breeding and better feeding and perhaps by more scientific
  384
  management. But this scheme lends itself to all kinds of criticism with regard to the various forms of administration which could be applied.
  I want to say at once that if any hon. Member has a suggestion to make of a constructive nature as to how we can best increase the number of calves that are reared beyond one year of age, if any hon. Member can suggest a scheme superior to the one in existence and which will achieve the same results, I shall be very happy to look at it. I have heard it said here and there that there are certain people who are dodging the column, that, for instance, after one calf has been examined by a certifying officer and rejected that same calf pops up at some other farm where the same certifying officer has gone along to examine other calves; and that this, therefore, is costing the Government quite a deal of money. That may or may not be true. At any rate, I shall be willing to listen to any suggestions made during the Debate and perhaps shall benefit from them in any future schemes.
  The first three Clauses give authority for the subsidy for all the calves born between 21st August, 1947, and the end of September, 1949. Power is to be sought with Parliamentary approval to extend the period for a further two years. We think, after careful examination, that this form of stimulus is necessary, and that it is superior to any other scheme which may be discovered. In any future scheme we shall reserve the right to vary the rates and conditions, if that should be thought fit. It has been suggested to me that instead of the£4 subsidy for a steer calf and£3 for a heifer calf, we might have given more for the steer and less for the heifer. That is one of those things one is willing to look at, and I shall be willing to look at any suggestion that may be made.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend give the actual figures of the increased numbers of calves?
  Mr. Williams: Three hundred and sixty-nine thousand for the United Kingdon, according to the December returns.
  Hon. Members will be familiar with the extension of the artificial breeding of cattle in the last few years. Initially,

  385
  this system was confined to dairy herds. The Milk Marketing Board stocked their insemination centres with good quality bulls of dairy breeds, catering especially for the small man. We hope the centres will make a considerable contribution towards increasing the yields. The fee charged for service is normally 25s. It is also important to breed good quality beef cattle as well as dairy cattle, and many small farmers in the areas served by the centres already in existence are just the people who formerly provided a valuable part of our supply of beef cattle.
  Again, some special incentives seemed necessary to give a change in breeding practice a really good start. Therefore, Clause 4 provides for a free service from certain breeds of colour marking beef bulls. Farmers are being encouraged to use this service for low yielding dairy cows which are not fit for breeding for herd replacements. The scheme is so far confined to certain breeds of beef bulls, Hereford, Aberdeen Angus and Galloway, which colour mark their progeny distinctively. In this case Scotland is two to one up, and I think that Scottish Members will be pleased with that. The announcement of August, 1947, promised the service until 31st March, 1949. It will be noticed that in Clause 4 we intend to cover the period from October, 1947, down to March, 1951—two years longer than the period originally announced. It also provides for a free service or one at less than the normal charge.
  As the result of recommendations of the Central Advisory Committee on Artificial Insemination, I have decided that the free beef service shall go on until the end of March, 1950, leaving the arrangements for the last year to be considered later by the same Advisory Committee, which will advise as to the wisdom or not of continuing with the same scheme. Experience shows that this scheme is also going reasonably well. The number of cows inseminated in the first year was 12,600, and because of an accelerated rate the estimates for the second and third years are something like 32,000 rising finally to 80,000. Here again I know there are dangers of abuse, but my livestock husbandry officers are watching developments very carefully, particularly with regard to dairy heifers which may be shied off to dairy herds unknown to the unfortunate purchasers. We have devised a scheme whereby those calves
  386
  are followed up very carefully and I hope we shall be able to avoid abuse.
  Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of what is the effect in terms of numbers of bulls bred of artificial insemination? Are the numbers continuing to increase?
  Mr. Williams: I am afraid I could not give the hon. Member any figures without notice.
  Mr. Snadden: Could we be told them at the end of the Debate?
  Mr. Williams: If it is possible to give them at the end of the Debate we will give them.
  The third part of our plan is to grow more of our own fodder. One of the best ways to become more self-supporting in feedingstuffs is by making the best possible use of our grass and to conserve it better for winter feed as hay, silage or dried grass. Therefore, Clause 5 seeks authority to encourage schemes for grass and forage crop conservation. At the moment the projects we propose to assist are communal grass drying centres on the lines of my statement made on 2nd February, 1948, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye). It will be found in Columns 222–223 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day, in the Written Answers. The experts feel that dried grass can make an important contribution to our protein supplies, whilst its carotene content makes in limited quantities a suitable addition in pig and poultry meals.
  I should like to make it clear, however, that we do not regard dried grass as a competitor with silage, but as a complementary feedingstuff, and we need a large increase in both. The technique of silage making is now well known, and the development of pit silage obviates the necessity for large capital equipment, and no financial assistance is necessary there. Nor do we provide assistance for small grass driers operated by individual farmers, which account for the bulk of the present output. Many farmers have been for several years producing a high quality product, and I hope that the adjustment of feedingstuff prices which is about to take place will be a further encouragement for others to follow suit I would strongly advise those who are

  387
  contemplating installing a drying plant to get all the advice they can from the national agricultural advisory officers, or their opposite numbers in Scotland. All the experience so far gained can be made available to the newcomer free of charge. So I would hope that, before anyone spends the money, he gets all the best advice he possibly can to make sure that he will make a success of the undertaking, because we do not want to waste our precious steel.
  Clause 5 is meant primarily to provide authority for grants of a third of the total approved capital cost of communal grass-drying plant established by farmers co-operative societies or by agricultural marketing boards any time between now and June, 1950. The centres in operation on 1st June, 1948, because they started very early, qualify for a grant of 40 per cent. of the total approved capital cost. In addition to the one-third grant there will be available short-term loans of another third of the total cost, leaving farmers only a third of the cost to divide between them. These centres must be run on a non-profit making basis.
  Such schemes are intended to help farmers with a small area of grass where they cannot hope to have a grass-drying plant of their own. Nineteen such centres have been established in England and Wales, and the results so far are very promising indeed. They have been closely examined by experts, who will be able to obtain valuable data on the engineering, biological and other scientific aspects of grass conservation. Scotland, I understand, has not yet got off the mark, but two centres have been established by the farmers co-operative societies in Scotland, and it is hoped that they will be in operation this year.
  The English Milk Marketing Board are playing a very big part in this work, just as they have been and are playing a very big part in the work of the artificial insemination centres. Of the 19 communal plants in existence, the Milk Marketing Board are responsible for no fewer than 12, but unfortunately, at the moment, their powers depend upon the Defence Regulations, which expire in December, 1950. We think, therefore, that it is desirable to make their powers permanent, and Clause 6 is designed to accomplish this. The remainder of the
  388
  Bill is not directly associated with the expansion programme—
  Mr. Alpass: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that grants will be made to communal organisations. What is the explanation of Clause 5 (1, a), where it is stated that grants will be made to any farmer? Does that mean any individual farmer?
  Mr. Williams: The provision is there in case we should feel it worth while to use it in the future. It is not our intention, however, at the moment to finance any other than communal grass-drying centres, although power is taken to do so in the paragraph referred to.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It says in the Bill that assistance will be granted to farmers without qualification. Can the Minister give us any idea of the level of production, for instance, below which he would not consider it; in other words, that it is not, in his opinion, worth while; or whether if there is a big farmer doing this in a big way he is worthy of assistance.
  Mr. Williams: The co-operative societies who undertake to establish the grass-drying plant, faced as they must be with the original expenditure perhaps of £2,000 for plant, plus £3,000 or £4,000 more for its fixation, ought to know that the area to be covered by the plant will be sufficiently large to maintain a continuance of grass sufficient to make it an economic proposition. In any case, the responsibility must obviously rest upon the constituent members of the farmers co-operative societies. I ought to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that before grants are made we shall require to know all the facts and figures relevant to the particular undertaking.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman does not rule out the big individual farmer who has a plant of his own?
  Mr. Williams: At the moment, yes. If I may correct myself, may I say that we are not helping in any such case, but, as I have said in reply to the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), we are taking power, and can, if we deem it wise, provide assistance to the individual later on.

  389
  I was saying that the remainder of the Clauses in this Bill are not directly associated with the expansion programme. They cover points thrown up over the last few years in the light of experience, and I need not waste the time of the House in dealing with them in any great detail. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to explain any feature of the Bill which is not transparently clear to hon. Members.
  Clause 7 amends the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, which provides for the transfer from the local authorities to the Minister of Agriculture the responsibility for the enforcement on dairy farms in England and Wales of the Milk and Dairies Regulations, and also the Raw Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, which govern the conditions of the granting of licences to farmers to sell their milk either as accredited or tuberculin tested. The 1944 Act comes into operation on a date to be determined by the Minister of Health. Unfortunately, however, owing to certain technical difficulties, the operation of the Act has been delayed. The chief object of this Clause is to remove these difficulties, to enable regulations to be made, and to bring the Act into operation as early as possible.
  The new regulations propose to give the medical officers of health power to prohibit sales of milk suspected of being infected with bovine diseases, such as tuberculosis or undulant fever, in addition to the present powers to stop milk infected with notifiable diseases such as diphtheria or scarlet fever. Any single cow may be giving tubercular milk without showing any clinical signs of the disease, and the real test is to determine which one of any herd may be the offending animal, which may take weeks to decide. The farmer may be stopped from selling his milk for weeks before the offending animal is discovered. We feel that in those circumstances the farmer is obviously entitled to compensation, but medical officers of health may hesitate to carry out their powers and duties if there is risk of letting their local authorities in for a very large bill for compensation. To meet this difficulty, the Minister of Health will be empowered to refund to local authorities up to 75 per cent. of any sums paid by way of compensation.
  Clause 8 is modelled on similar provisions in the Employment and Training
  390
  Act, 1948, under which the Minister of Labour is empowered to provide training schemes to assist the redeployment of labour while we are attempting to carry out a full employment policy. Under this Clause, and in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, similar powers are being sought to provide training in agriculture under the direction of the Agricultural Ministers. A properly trained regular labour force is essential if agriculture and horticulture are to play their full part in the national recovery. I believe that there are many men and women anxious to make a career on the land if they can only be given the right of entrée. Suitable adult persons will be given 12 months' practical training on approved farms, after which there should be little or no difficulty in their finding satisfactory employment in the industry.
  Of the remaining Clauses in this small Bill, I need only refer to three. Clause 9 deals with tenant rights. When a county executive committee takes possession of a farm, they have to pay the outgoing tenant tenant right valuation, but there is a doubt whether the county executive committee or the Ministry of Agriculture is actually a tenant. There are something like 450,000 acres of land in question, and it seems to me, therefore, that it is right to ensure that if the Department have to pay tenant right valuation to an outgoing tenant, once the land is banded back to its original owner the Department is entitled to receive tenant valuation rights. That is the object of this Clause.
  Mr. Turton: Does that policy apply to dilapidations? I can find nothing mentioned about dilapidations in Clause 9.
  Mr. Williams: I think it can be safely said that wherever a county executive committee has taken over, it has made improvements and not allowed dilapidations.
  Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Are dilapidations included?
  Mr. Williams: What we are seeking to do in Clause 9 is to deal with tenant right valuation and nothing more. That is all that the Clause sets out to accomplish.
  Mr. Hurd: Would the Minister put himself in the position of the ordinary farm tenant who is going out of the farm? There is a claim, and possibly a counterclaim.
  Mr. Williams: Whatever the outgoing tenant is entitled to under the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, the Ministry of Agriculture will be entitled to under this Clause.
  Clause 10 attempts to remove certain difficulties arising from a rather restrictive legal interpretation of the word "co-operative," in connection with the provisions of Part IV of the 1937 Act in relation to smallholdings. With regard to Clause 11, a magistrate before whom a prosecution was taken for the importation of colorado beetles into this country called attention to the inadequacy of the penalties specified in the Destructive Insects and Pests Act of 1877. Colorado beetle can be a very serious menace to our potato crops. We propose therefore to take practical note in Clause 11 of what the magistrate said, by increasing the penalties.
  In commending this small Bill to the House I have covered quite a few modest topics, but they are all extremely useful. I hope that I have said enough to show that there is a necessity for the Bill and I hope that the Bill will secure unanimous approval. Several of the provisions of the Bill such as the calf subsidy, the grass drying scheme, and the insemination schemes, are already in existence with the general good will of all sections of the industry. The other matters in the Bill, although relatively unimportant, are designed to help agriculture and the nation.
  4.22 p.m.
  Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: The Minister explained in the opening passages of his speech that the provisions of the Bill might be placed under two distinct heads. One is the promotion of the agricultural expansion programme, which comprises the main provisions of the Bill. For the most part it consists of Clauses which give statutory authority to administrative measures already introduced in connection with the programme which was announced by the Government in 1947. The other heading covers miscellaneous provisions, again mainly administrative in character.
  392
  We are in a rather difficult position in discussing the Bill because, since it was introduced and published, there have been two important statements on Government policy, and they have a very direct bearing on the Bill. I refer in the first instance to a statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech to the National Farmers' Union annual dinner about 10 days ago, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred specifically to the subsidies being given to the agricultural industry in the way envisaged in many Clauses of the Bill. I should like to quote one sentence of the Chancellor's speech on that occasion:
  "We have hitherto, owing to the disturbed price structure of the world and the changing and developing conditions of our own agricultural production, been constrained to operate to some extent through a number of varied subsidies, attempting to balance one form of production against another so as to get the best total of production possible to suit our immediate needs."
  The Chancellor then went on to argue the merits of fair prices for the final products of the industry compared with those varied subsidies, and he expressed the hope that the Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, would be able to get rid of all those special subsidies as soon as they were in a position to do so. In this very important statement the Chancellor did make one exception to this principle, and that was in regard to marginal farming. As far as marginal land was concerned he said:
  "The problem of marginal land of all sorts is a great problem in national production, and in this exceptional case the Government has decided that special ad hoc assistance must be continued."
  The second of the statements to which I refer and which make it difficult for us to discuss this Measure, was made in this House by the Minister of Agriculture in answer to a Written Question on 24th January, when he announced that the Government's policy of subsidising the price of feedingstuffs was to be abandoned. At the end of a detailed statement the Minister used these words:
  "Consequential adjustments of the prices to be paid to farmers for livestock, and livestock products such as milk, wool and eggs, will be discussed between the Agricultural Departments and the Farmers' Unions of the United Kingdom at the annual price review which is to

  393
  take place next month."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 80.]
  We on this side of the House are in general agreement with this policy, because until now, livestock prices have for the most part been based on the cost of imported foodstuffs. Those under control of the Government were sold to farmers at a much smaller price than the price at which farmers could market their own crops, which resulted in many instances in there not being an incentive for farmers to feed their stocks on food grown on their own farms.
  In addition to that statement, the Minister went even further in his broadcast on 3rd February. He intimated among other things that for the 1949 harvest farmers would be allowed to retain as much of their barley as they wished for the feeding of their own stock, instead of having a limit put upon the use of their barley for this purpose of 20 per cent., as was the case during 1948. The House will agree that those statements are not in line with many of the provisions in the Bill. One must bear them in mind when we are discussing this Measure.
  I now come to Clauses 1 to 3, which deal with the payment of a subsidy in respect of calves. As is the custom in this House I must declare my interest in this matter. I happen to have a small dairy shorthorn herd so, in course of time I shall, no doubt, be receiving a subsidy under these Clauses. Ever since the Bill was published, hon. Members in all parts of the House have been making inquiries in the areas they represent to find out how this scheme is operating. I have no doubt that the Minister will welcome the many views which he will hear expressed in this connection during the Debate, as he intimated in his speech he would. I hope very much that he and his colleagues will give most careful consideration to the points that will be made.
  I propose to ask the Minister certain questions about the calf subsidy. First, is he satisfied that the £30 million which the scheme is likely to cost in the four-year period envisaged under the Bill has been put to the best possible use to achieve the objects desired. That brings me at once to the cost of administration. The figures the Minister has given for the first four months of the scheme are very alarming. Three thousand certifying
  394
  officers have to be employed to operate the scheme, and they received £110,000 in fees during the four months. In addition to that, the administration and clerical costs amounted to another £5,200 in the same period. Hon. Members will agree that this price is very high, and I am certain that some simplification of the procedure could be introduced.
  The procedure could, in the first place, be simplified in regard to the instructions which are given to the certifying officers. At present they are paid a flat rate of 3s. 6d. per calf inspected, irrespective of the number of farms visited. It may well be that a certifying officer has to take a long journey in order to inspect one calf and for that work he is entitled to 3s. 6d. He will have wasted a considerable amount of time. and the House will agree that 3s. 6d. is an inadequate payment for such a job. Another certifying officer may have to go only a short distance to a farm where he will find 15 or 25 calves under one roof. He still receives 3s. 6d. per head. There is no equity in that kind of arrangement. I should have thought it would have been possible to devise a scale of payments on a "per visit" basis plus a "per capita" increment, and I should like the Government to look into that point.
  I know that there are many points of view about the marking of the calves themselves, but it cannot be denied that, certainly in the initial stages of the scheme, calves which were rejected in the first instance were brought up time and time again for further inspection. That is a wholly unsatisfactory position. It may be reasonable for a calf to have two chances but after it has passed the second chance stage, the failed calf ought to be marked in order to prevent subsequent inspection. The position today is that calves which are passed are marked and calves which are discarded are not marked. The House will appreciate that a loophole exists enabling calves to be brought before another certifying officer. That is altogether a most unsatisfactory position. Are the Government satisfied that they have been able to prevent over-age calves being submitted for the test? There, again, exists a loophole. At any rate a saving of administration in the work of the certifying officers could be effected.

  395
  Is the Minister satisfied that the scheme is achieving its object and that the subsidy is going to the breeders of store cattle and not to the feeders of store cattle? The object of the Bill is to encourage the breeding of cattle for beef and this money is to be spent with the object of helping the farmers to retain calves which would otherwise have been slaughtered. I have a suspicion that in many cases the payment is going to the feeders and not the breeders. The feeders will get the benefit in the price of beef under the February price review and we want to ensure, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, that any benefits from this scheme go to the breeders of the calves.
  Mr. Alpass: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman elaborate that last point? It is not quite clear to some of us how the rearer gets the money and not the breeder.
  Sir T. Dugdale: If the breeder sells his calf before it is nine months old, he may sell it to a man who is buying a lot of young calves which he intends to feed on. In that case the subsidy will go not to the breeder but to the feeder, the man buying the young calves between one week and nine months old.
  On 7th February, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), the Minister informed the House that in the last four months subsidy payments were made in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 245,000 heifer calves and only 106,000 steer calves. In England and Wales 7,000 calves were rejected. Apparently Northern Ireland does not keep account of the rejects. The position in Scotland was not disclosed by that answer. The interesting thing about those figures is that the subsidy was paid to more than double the number of heifers compared with steers. Surely that is not the object of the scheme. The object is to retain calves which would have been destroyed before the scheme came into being and to carry them on until they make beef. Many of these heifer calves will have come from dairy districts, and in most of those areas heifer calves are reared anyway, so that this scheme appears to be a very expensive method of increasing the number of steers for beef. The Minister's statistics show that, after a big initial
  396
  jump when the scheme was introduced, there has not been an increase in the number of steers of one year or less in recent months but a decrease. In fact, between 4th September, 1948, and 4th December, 1948, there has been a reduction of 10,000 steers under one year of age. That should be examined very carefully to see what it implies in relation to the progress of this scheme.
  I could give other examples, but I think that from what I have said and from the figures at our disposal, the House will agree that the results so far achieved under these schemes are not too promising. I feel that the mistake is that these subsidies are in no way linked to any definite plan. That is the crux of the matter. These subsidies are floating about in the air without any tether, or, to give a better analogy, they are like seaweed drifting about the sea at the whim of every current and tide that may play upon them. It is essential that they should be tied to some concrete and definite plan if they are to achieve the result which we hope to see them achieve.
  I now come to what I believe would be the correct solution. I should like to see the subsidies linked directly to the problem of marginal land. It is from the marginal land of this country that a great proportion of our increased production must come if we are to achieve our target by 1952. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will consider this point. On the whole, the big arable districts have been yielding up to their maximum production during the last few years. What the Government wish them to produce in the national interest can, to a very large extent, be regulated every February under the February price review, but the question of increasing production on marginal land is very different. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the Minister of Agriculture a lead in his speech to the National Farmers' Union in this respect, and I very much hope that he will examine the possibility of tying up this subsidy scheme to increasing the production from marginal land.
  I think I have said enough about that scheme, and I will pass to Clause 4. Although I think we can accept it in principle, we are not happy about Subsection (3). In some curious way the Minister of Agriculture always manages to slip into his Bills a subsection giving

  397
  all sorts of powers. I hope he will look at Subsection (3) again, because I do not believe that the powers in this subsection are really necessary for the operation of the Clause as a whole. Under this subsection the Minister can give directions to any artificial insemination centre, irrespective of whether it is a grant aided centre or a private enterprise co-operative centre. For example, the Hampshire Cattle Breeders' Society, who do not keep beef bulls, may be directed to provide this service at an uneconomic cost. That would not be in the least a suitable or satisfactory way of proceeding. Again the Minister of Agriculture, through his animal husbandry officer, may prescribe whether a cow is to be served by a beef or dairy bull. The wisdom of this arbitrary Measure seems open to very grave doubt. I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee we shall be able to consider this point, but if the Parliamentary Secretary could clear our minds on it when he replies tonight it would be a great convenience to the House.
  I pass to Clause 5. The Minister dealt at length with Clause 5 which concerns schemes for subsidising grass and forage crop conservation. It appeared to us on this side of the House that he was very much in doubt as to what he was driving at. Before dealing with this Clause in detail, I should like to make a general observation. Here again this Clause is at complete variance with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister in their policy of removing the subsidy from feedingstuffs. If the general policy is for feedingstuffs to be valued at their commercial cost, surely it is inconsistent to pick on a particular commodity such as dried grass and make it especially cheap. We on this side of the House are in favour of making loans available, secured on the equipment that is used, if it can be shown that the existing facilities of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation are inadequate, but the position needs examining in the light of the recent statements that have been made. However, assuming that schemes are to be introduced—and, indeed, schemes have been introduced—under this Clause, it should be made clear before we leave the House this evening exactly where the individual farmer stands. The Minister was questioned by one of my hon. Friends, and I do not think his answer contained a definite statement on the position.
  Mr. T. Williams: I thought I had made it clear. Clause 5 (1) says:
  "any farmer growing grass or forage crops; or any farmers' co-operative society or organisation carrying on business for the mutual benefit of the farmers."
  What I said was that at the moment we were only providing financial assistance to a communal grass drying centre, but we have taken the power to provide assistance for an individual farmer if we deem it wise.
  Sir T. Dugdale: I thank the Minister very much for that intervention, but how is the ordinary individual farmer to know when the Minister changes his mind? There ought to be some way whereby the farmer knows exactly where he is, instead of being left entirely in the air. As to the schemes proposed, I hope that the Minister will balance equally the merits of silage and dried grass. I do not wish to be drawn into this argument on the Floor of the House or indeed in any other place, but I think we all agree that the future alone can decide which is the best way to conserve our grass, whether it be by silage or by drying—probably a combination of the two. I think they should be complementary one to the other, but it is important that in this Bill there should not be a bias in favour of dried grass as opposed to silage. That is my only point in that regard.
  There is a technical point concerning Clause 6, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be, able to enlighten us. Why was Clause 6 not included in the Agricultural Marketing Bill? That would appear to be a very appropriate place to put it. Here in this Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill we have a Clause dealing with the power of milk marketing boards to conserve grass, which would be better placed in the Agricultural Marketing Bill.
  That brings us to the miscellaneous provisions in the Bill. At this stage I do not propose to deal at length with these provisions, but I should like to make just two points. Clause 8, which we welcome, empowers the Minister to provide training facilities, residential accommodation and allowances for agricultural trainees over the age of 15. We believe that this will introduce a measure of apprenticeship into the industry. However, the Minister must realise that, while these

  399
  provisions will, we hope, help to retain on and attract young people to the land, the real answer to this problem must be in increased accommodation which will provide more homes to enable young couples to stay in the countryside.
  I have one question I should like to ask the Minister about Clause 9, which deals with tenant rights. The Minister, in referring to tenant rights, was questioned about dilapidations. Surely, it must be a two-way traffic. The Minister must put himself in exactly the same position as any ordinary tenant under this Clause. May we have an assurance that he will do this? As far as we understand the Clause, there is no reference to arbitration. Under Section 23 (5) the Agricultural (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, when the Minister gave up possession of requisitioned land the owner was liable to pay compensation for certain improvements carried out during the Minister's occupation. Section 23 (6) provided for arbitration in cases of dispute on this matter; the arbitrator, in default of agreement, had to be appointed by the president of the Chartered Surveyors Institution. It may be that this is governed by the 1948 Act; but can we have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary exactly what the position is?
  My hon. Friends will discuss other considerations during the Debate, but I cannot conclude without referring to the British consumer. I Think we are all agreed that the whole purpose of our agricultural production policy is to help the farmers in the United Kingdom to provide more varied and better rations for the great consuming public. At the moment the British public have to be content with only a small meat ration—and a bad one at that. Many of the provisions of this Bill are designed to improve this ration, and although many of my hon. Friends do not think that the schemes go far towards achieving the result desired, we shall do our best by constructive suggestions to improve this Measure before it reaches the Statute Book.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Being a humble denizen of a Committee room upstairs, wherein a certain Bill relating
  400
  to iron and steel is at the moment being discussed, it is a very great pleasure to me, if not somewhat of a shock also, to come to this House and to hear of a Measure which is generally welcomed by hon. Members on all sides, with very little controversy indeed. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), I must confess—and indeed I thought I detected it in the tones of the Minister—that I am a little uneasy about the calf subsidy. We are all agreed that the object of the calf subsidy is a very laudable one: namely, that there should be an increase in the production of beef by our home agriculture. And we are also agreed, I think, that almost anything within reason should be done to achieve that object. Whether or not this calf subsidy is within reason is a question on which some of us are a little uneasy.
  That point has already been gone into with great care on both sides of the House, even at this stage of the Debate, and I do not want to go into it in any detail. However, I should like my right hon. Friend to know that this particular supporter of his would be very much in his favour if he should decide to give notice that this subsidy will come to an end at some stage in the future which may be convenient to all interests concerned. I confess to being a little coy, as was the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, about suggesting the precise measures which should replace the calf subsidy, should it go. But I do feel that the Minister should know that this House would be behind him if he decided to do away with this subsidy and to replace it with some other, and perhaps better, way of achieving the object we all have in mind.
  This is a good Bill, despite the drabness of its title. And, indeed, it is a big Bill, despite its shortness. I think that it would be both these if it contained only one of the very important provisions of Clauses 5, 6 and 8. If there are two causes in agriculture which are particularly near to my heart they are: first, the production of the optimum amount of feedingstuffs for stock on each unit of agricultural production; and secondly, the provision of adequate training facilities for anybody, no matter what his origin, if he should show himself willing

  401
  and keen and capable of taking advantage of those facilities, to provide himself with training for any agricultural occupation, no matter in what branch of agriculture he may wish to serve.
  In spite of all that has happened, and is continuing to happen, in the world and in this country, there are still to be found persons who gain their living from the land—I would myself hesitate to use the honourable term "farmer" in connection with them—who are calling out for imported feedingstuffs and expecting the Government to produce those feedingstuffs out of a hat. Perhaps the latter part of that expectation is the most sensible of all, for there does not appear to be any other obvious place from which they could produce these feedingstuffs; that is to say, obvious outside the country. But, if we wish and if we set about it in the right way, we can from our own farms produce all the feedingstuffs we require for the stock which we should have on those farms in order to maintain them in fertility.
  I confess that I am, maybe, old-fashioned enough to view with considerable suspicion the practice which has grown so much of late of farming out of a bag. I suspect that most hon. Members would consider it almost a platitude to say that we must have enough feedingstuffs to tide our cattle over during the winter months. That is a perfectly obvious proposition, I should have thought. Another proposition which I think equally obvious is that we must have on our holdings a sufficient number of cattle to maintain those holdings in a state of fertility. There is, however, some degree of controversy about a slight development and combination of those two; namely, that there should be on each unit of production a sufficiency of stock to maintain that unit of production in a state of fertility; and also that that unit of production should produce all the feedingstuffs required for that stock.
  That is the proposition which is encouraged by the Clauses in this Bill, and it is one which other measures taken by this Government have also tended to encourage, and for which I wish to add my voice in applauding the Government. In what better way could we produce those necessary foodstuffs for that necessary amount of stock to maintain fertility than by the growing of a sufficient
  402
  quantity of our best crop, grass, and by conserving it when it is in its most nutritious state? I should not like to exclude any other forage crops, but this is the nearest to hand. So, with the right hon. Gentleman, I hope we shall not fall into the error of thinking that because something is expensive it is necessarily better than something which is not so expensive, and at the present stage I do not think anyone would dispute that the process of drying grass is an extremely expensive system. It may be good or it may be found to be uneconomical in the long run, but I am glad that my right hon. Friend has stated his intention of subsidising this process of grass drying so that we may know whether or not it will prove to be the economic proposition which we all hope that it will. In the meantime, let us not ignore the healing waters of Jordan which lie to our hand, in grass ensilage, in order to chase after some distant, more romantic, more elaborate and perhaps more fashionable Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, which may not do the same for us later on.
  The second of the causes in agriculture to which I am a devotee in a humble way is that of providing training for those wishing to enter into the industry. I know that it has been a long-established notion, with much to support it that it is not possible to become a successful farmer unless one has been born and bred in a farmer's household. I should be the last to run down the value of the experience which can be gained, especially if it be absorbed in one's early years, by living with the problems of agriculture which are to be solved, and living with them until they are solved. I should be the last to belittle in any way the efficacy of breeding either with beasts or with humans, and I have no doubt that the experience obtained by being brought up in a farming family, and the advantage of being of fanning stock, are perhaps the most valuable possible capital for successful farming. One is lucky enough indeed to have it.
  However, I submit to the House that they are not by any means the only sources of that valuable capital, and by a deliberate policy of training suitable persons it is possible to make successful farmers. Also, we are passing through what I would describe as a welcome time when people, even in our cities, are be-

  403
  ginning to realise that the man who actually produces food is doing the most important work in the world. This is the time, therefore, when we should seize the chance of drawing in to the agricultural industry recruits from outside it, even though they do not have a farming background.
  I am well aware of the pitfalls which lie in the way of anybody who should attempt to become a successful farmer without adequate preparation or background. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture took wise steps to avoid many of those pitfalls in his provisions in the smallholdings section of the Agriculture Act. I submit that, provided his schemes take adequate precautions to see that the candidates for his assistance are suitable, the widest possible net should be thrown. Here we are, on the threshold of a new era for agriculture and we should seize the opportunity. I am delighted with the steps which have been taken in that direction by what was previously considered to be an urban party's government. Perhaps they have done more than any other Government in my lifetime towards redressing the balance between town and country which has been lopsided for so long.
  The necessities of our times have undoubtedly made our townspeople realise that no matter how much a townsman may strut in his city suit, no matter how clean his hands, or how shiny his shoes, it is still the honest, hardworking countryman and his wife who are doing the really important work of our civilisation. Far too much has flowed from this lop-sidedness already in the way of shallowness and emptiness and, indeed, forgetfulness of the really important values of life. This lack of balance in our society is one which we have tolerated for too long. To come down to the mundane, I feel that Clause 8 giving the Minister power to provide wider training facilities may be a starting point from which a humble attempt can be made to redress that balance, and on that ground, even if it were true that I would support it on no other, I commend this Bill to the House.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: I agree wholeheartedly, as I know most of my hon.
  404
  Friends do, with the objects which the Minister has in mind in bringing forward this Bill. It seems to me that he wants every farmer to adopt the farming practices that will give the country the extra food we so urgently need. That is the mainspring of this Bill, and it is an object with which we agree.
  The Minister, being a member of the Cabinet, knows better perhaps than most of us on the back benches how vitally important it is for this country to produce more beef here. In this Bill he is taking steps that he hopes will result in more cattle from dairy herds being reared and fed for beef. We have to use the material that is to hand. The material we are wasting as veal at the moment consists of the bull calves from the dairy herds, and in some districts many of those bull calves are worth rearing and carrying on for beef while our supplies are as difficult as they are today. That would not be economical in pre-war days, and at the best they will give us beef which is no better than the beef we expect to get when we go to the Continent of Europe, where they also rely on dairy animals largely for their beef production. But that is the only material we can salvage to get extra beef here, and I am sure the Minister is right in giving a temporary inducement to farmers to rear these calves which would otherwise be slaughtered for veal.
  I dislike all agricultural subsidies. On this point I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In our present circumstances it is commonsense to give inducements to farmers to rear some of the bull calves from dual-purpose herds which would otherwise be cast for veal and so be lost for beef production. These steer calves are to get a subsidy when, after 12 months, they are passed by the certifying officer as being likely to make reasonably good beef beasts. In some counties probably quite a big proportion of calves will pass this standard, and a good job can be made of rearing them.
  But while I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister's objective, it worries me that he is also offering a subsidy of £3 a head for heifer calves. I do not like subsidies, but I shall pocket my reluctance with the £3 a head from the subsidies which the Minister is to pay me for rearing 60 heifer calves in an Ayrshire herd which I should rear anyway. I am

  405
  very doubtful whether the Minister has got the proportions right in offering£4 a head for steers and£3 for heifer calves. I am not clear what is his real intention in offering any substantial subsidy for the rearing of heifer calves. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain this more clearly than did the Minister. None of us wants to see this £30 million fooled away or wasted. We want to see it directed into the channels that will produce the best possible results in increased output of beef.
  There are points of criticism about the marking of calves. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) also has referred to these questions. The Minister must ensure that certifying officers properly mark reject calves, at the second showing at any rate. Those people whom I have consulted in Berkshire who are so engaged have an uneasy feeling that they see some of these calves several times over, although not necessarily on the same farm. Indeed, one certifying officer tells me he has to take a torch with him to make quite sure that animals have not been marked. The mark of rejection should be made quite clearly so that when a calf has been seen and rejected there should be no doubt about it.
  Frankly, I do not think much of the Minister's idea of providing free services at artificial insemination centres to farmers who agree to have their cows mated to beef bulls. I am afraid there are farmers who will say, "The Government are giving me free service for my cows if I use a beef bull, whereas I have to pay 25s. for using a proper dairy bull. I suppose the Government are very keen on our using beef bulls so I will take the free service." That will be a great inducement, for it will save the farmer 25s. straightaway, but it may cost him much more than that in the development of his herd. He may have, for instance, a useful line of dairy stock which he should develop, but the free service provided by artificial insemination centres may be a strong temptation to some farmers to use bulls which are unsuitable to the interests not only of themselves in building up herds for milk production but to the country.
  I do not like the power which the Minister is taking in Clause 4 to give directions which may specify the extent
  406
  and nature of the service to be provided by these centres. Who is to decide on the nature of the service or what bull is to be used? Will it be the animal husbandry officer? While we all have great hopes of the wisdom of these officers and, indeed, of all the advisory officers employed by the Ministry, there are occasions when their advice is not so reliable or practical as that of the man who is actually earning his living by breeding cattle and milking cows. The owner of the herd certainly should be allowed to say to what bulls he will have his cows mated. I should not give him any special inducement to use a beef bull by offering him a free service.
  The subsidies and loans for grass drying are justified as a temporary measure. We need more farmers to join together, as the farmers in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) have done very successfully, to establish grass-drying plants set up under the Milk Marketing Board or under some other organisation. These proposals are justified in order to get such schemes started, for their equipment involves great expense. The reduction in the subsidy on animal feedingstuffs, recently announced, will probably do much more to encourage farmers to conserve their grass by drying or by silage than any amount of direct subsidies or loans for the specific purpose of grass drying. That is, in fact, a much sounder way.
  I hope, therefore, that the Minister will set a time limit to the subsidies and loans which are to be given to start these enterprises. We want not only dried grass, but all the other forms of highly valuable home-grown fodder, in order that we may stand on our own feet. When the Minister has once given the first impetus, the price that the farmer will get for his milk or meat should be right to give him the incentive to grow the right crops and to conserve in the right way, either by silage or grass drying.
  Clause 9 deals with "tenant right" and Clause 12 with the sale of machinery. Both of these are steps in the right direction, and because they mark the fact that the Minister is shedding responsibilities for farming land. In our view, the farming of land should never be a State responsibility except in the extreme need of wartime. Therefore, I welcome these

  407
  two Clauses, for they show that the Minister is anxious to get out of land and, as he does so, to collect whatever may be due to him. I hope that he will act fairly and squarely in the powers that he is taking. Not only getting what is due to him in tenant right, but paying what is due from him as, indeed, any ordinary tenant farmer would do on leaving a farm. As a farmer he is like a cuckoo in the nest. He went in when nobody wanted him to do so and now he is getting out. I hope that he will go out in a way which is fair not only to the owners of the land but also to the incoming tenant.
  The Bill is full of good intentions, although its methods appear likely to be costly. I am doubtful about the practical value of some of the proposals, particularly the subsidies on heifer calves and on grass drying. I have an uneasy feeling that the Minister is suffering from a lack of practical counsel from the counties and that his county committees are so smothered with paper that they have no time or inclination to use their initiative to tell the Minister how they, as practical men, would do the job. Especially is this true of the question of producing more beef from marginal lands, which was stressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond. Marginal lands do not exist only in the North and in the Highland counties. We have them in Berkshire and Wiltshire, thousands of acres, adjoining Salisbury-Plain. A great deal more food could be produced from this land.
  If the Minister would consult frankly and fully with the counties and with the competent men on the county committees, he would get sound advice about how these areas could be made more productive. He knows that a great deal of the success of policies for which he as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) were responsible during the war was due to these constant and frank consultations with the counties. Today a county committee chairman has to be exceptionally tough and tiresome ever to penetrate to the Minister and too often he and committee members are fobbed off with the usual official excuse for inaction—
  Mr. T. Williams: I am sure that is not so.
  Mr. Hurd: —and an executive officer who ventures to put forward constructive, or maybe critical, suggestions soon learns his lesson. I ask the Minister to take note of my opinion, for what it is worth, that this Bill bears the mark of the malaise which has overcome 55, Whitehall.
  Mr. T. Williams: I am sure the hon. Member will not object to my intervening after the statement he has just made, because it simply has not any foundation in fact. Indeed, I know of no case where a county executive chairman has sought an interview with me and that interview did not accrue. So far from my refusing to accept advice and guidance from county executive chairmen, I have had all the chairmen in London twice within the past 18 months, with an open door. They could make their suggestions far and wide and for as long as they liked. There is no such thing as anyone having made a suggestion and being nobbled for it—certainly not.
  Mr. Hurd: The Minister has his sources of information and I have mine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—and I do not wish to withdraw anything I have said.
  Mr. Alpass: The hon. Member should particularise and not make general statements.
  Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) is interested in particular cases, I will gladly give them to him afterwards.
  Mr. Alpass: But the hon. Member has made a statement in public in this House and I think he should substantiate it with some facts.
  Mr. Hurd: I am satisfied from my knowledge that there is a malaise today in 55, Whitehall and I am trying to help the Minister to discover the cause of it. I am suggesting that it is because he does not have constant enough or frank enough consultations with the counties. I hope he will take note of that suggestion.
  I feel this Bill is the lazy way of tackling the problems we know have to be tackled. It just spreads around more subsidies with little discrimination. That may be good politics; there is a General Election coming along fairly soon. But,

  409
  I would say to the Minister that while subsidies may be justified in order to get farmers to change their ways quickly to meet the needs of the times the period of such subsidies should be strictly limited. Needs do change, our need's today are different from those during the war. I fully agree that there may be need for temporary subsidies to get farmers to change their ways quickly, but the price structure must be kept right, and this will call for a good deal of closer co-operation between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food.
  In considering this Bill, it is the business of this House to see that the £33 million we are asked to vote is used to the best advantage. We shall have to do some hard thinking to help the Minister to make this a really good and effective Bill. I am sure that, although we may approach these problems from different angles, we all have the same object in mind. We shall all put forward constructive suggestions which, in the light of our knowledge, we think will help to get these desirable jobs done quickly and economically.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I welcome the calf subsidy as far as it concerns rearing calves for beef. Many of us have seen parts of England, where cattle-raising used to be one of the major parts of the agriculture industry, gradually turned over to milk production, almost to the complete exclusion of stock rearing. For some time in my county a calf subsidy was discussed as a means of countering that tendency. Some farms have gone into milk production which ought not to be in milk production. That is true of my county and of many parts of England.
  I believe there is some evidence now that, with the price of beef and store cattle at what it is, on marginal farms it is as profitable to rear cattle as to sell milk. Certainly the subsidy on bull calves will help to make the rearing of those calves more profitable, but I query whether the subsidy on heifer calves is desirable. I should disclose my interest in this. It will do me quite a lot of good as a farmer. It will bring a larger part of the money set aside for this purpose to the dairy farmers of this country and not to those who are rearing beef stock. In the districts I know those who
  410
  have dairy heifers which are worth rearing are already rearing them and we do not want dairy heifers reared if they are not worth rearing. That is a sure way of reducing the efficiency of the milk industry. We want to get rid of the second-class dairy heifer. Therefore we do not want to encourage more dairy heifers to be reared than are already being reared.
  I would go a little further than any other hon. Member has gone today and say that the money which is being spent on heifers might much more profitably be spent in other ways. The last time I spoke on agriculture in this House was when we discussed the problem of marginal farms. I believe the opportunity for increasing our total output of agricultural produce in this country is greatest in the development of marginal land and in encouraging the marginal farmer to produce more. To quite a large extent the bull calf subsidy will go to such men. I believe that the larger half of the subsidy which is going now to the dairy man should be used either to increase the subsidy for the bull calf or to help the marginal farmer in other ways.
  There is an enormous job to be done on marginal land in improving the fertility of grassland. It is an expensive job and the marginal farmer has not the capital with which to do it. The Minister recently told us, in answer to a question, that the marginal scheme is being reconsidered. I believe that we in the North of England are to get terms perhaps as good as have been obtaining in Scotland. I am delighted to hear that. But the problem is a large one, and if there is available perhaps £20 million, which the heifer subsidy may amount to, I believe that a bigger yield in production would be obtained by spending that sum in helping the small farmers, the stock-growing farmers, than by putting another £20 million into the pockets of the dairymen, who have not been doing too badly lately. I therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider that point.
  Most of the provisions of this Bill are of course already accomplished facts; the administration has been set up. I do not wish to blame the Minister for proceeding speedily with the development scheme, but the fact remains that no suggestions or criticisms which we can make in connection with this Bill can easily

  411
  be accepted by the Minister, either at this stage or during the Committee stage, because the whole of the administration has been set up and all these schemes are in operation. Had the Minister brought this scheme to the House earlier he would have found a large consensus of opinion that this subsidy to the dairy heifer was not required.
  The man who is rearing bull calves could be helped in one way which is not contained in the Bill but is a matter of administration. If the small farmer, or indeed the large farmer, who is rearing bull calves received a little more feedingstuffs for those calves he would certainly rear more. The way in which rations are supplied to the small farmer who is rearing bull calves penalises him if he is not a milk seller. If he sells milk he gets a ration of calf cake for every calf on the farm, but if he does not sell milk he only gets a ration of cake for every calf over and above the number of cows which he has on the farm. That means that he has to find home-grown concentrates of some sort for a large proportion of the calves on the farm. If the Ministry really want to encourage calf rearing on these small farms I would say from my experience that if the calf rearer was treated in the same way as the milk seller he would be able to rear more calves.
  I agree that rearing calves is probably as profitable as milk selling. The great difference is that the milk seller gets a monthly cheque whereas the calf rearer has to wait for perhaps three years, or at all events for one year or 18 months, before he gets his money. It seems to me that if some system of interim payment could be considered a great many more people would rear calves. I do not wish to go into this matter in detail, but supposing that the Ministry were not paying a subsidy on heifer calves, I believe that the way to help the small calf-rearing farmer would be to pay another subsidy to him after two years, or some stage of that kind.
  I wish to deal with a small point about the cost of this administration. The fact that the subsidy is paid at a period of between nine months and a year means a great number of visits by the certifying officer. I wonder if the Minister would consider paying the subsidy on calves between say the ages of three months
  412
  and a year? If a calf has been reared to the age of three months, which is the expensive period when it is consuming milk, the farmer will continue to rear it until it is reasonably full-grown. The number of visits by certifying officers could be greatly reduced by allowing them to mark and certify any calf between the age of three months and a year. It would mean that the number of visits to any farm over the year could be greatly reduced and thereby the cost of certification would be reduced.
  I now turn to grass drying, and I should disclose my interest. We dry grass on quite a large scale in my county. We have eight or nine grass-drying plants in Cumberland at present. Some are privately owned by farmers and others, one is run by a farmers' co-operative society and one is run by the Milk Marketing Board. An announcement that the subsidies on animal feedingstuffs are to be reduced and that their price is to go up correspondingly, would encourage people generally to go in for grass drying more than anything else. I wonder if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could give us a little more detail about what is to be done in regard to that matter? My information is that most animal feedingstuffs carry a subsidy averaging about £10 a ton, perhaps more. The total figure is about £77 million a year.
  Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give us an indication of how much these feedingstuffs are to be allowed to rise in price—will it be £5 per ton?—because that is important to those who are undertaking the setting up of grass-drying plants? Their product has to compare in price with other feedingstuffs and if the price of feedingstuffs rises, grass-drying will obviously become more profitable. I agree that it is not an unprofitable business now. It may be necessary to inject this encouragement of the loan and the grants into some co-operative organisations. I believe that what really makes people hesitate about going into this business is not the immediate but the long-term position. People are doubtful about whether the market will not be flooded later with dried grass and dried crops. If we could know clearly what the subsidy position in regard to feedingstuffs is to be, I believe that many people

  413
  who might take up grass-drying would be more encouraged to do so.
  I do not quite understand what the policy is under which these subsidies and grants are made. I read that the Milk Marketing Board are receiving assistance. If that is so, it cannot be that the assistance is being given to those who have no capital. The Milk Marketing Board have enormous resources behind them. I should have thought that the assistance of which I am speaking might he more properly reserved for the group of farmers who are prepared to undertake this business, which has some risk attached to it. The Milk Marketing Board surely have all the capital behind them that they need.
  Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member must appreciate that the Milk Marketing Board as such, receives no money in this respect. The Board runs a grass-drying centre for a large number of small farmers on a non-profit making basis. In other words, they are doing the work but they receive no funds themselves.
  Mr. Roberts: But if they think it is a good policy to dry grass for their members surely they will not fail for want of capital to carry out what they have agreed is a good policy? I should not have thought that the fact that the Government are not offering them capital would weigh with the Milk Marketing Board. If they want to do this thing, they will do it without a grant and I do not believe that this particular grant is necessary.
  Finally, I would say a word about the Clause dealing with smallholdings. I understand that this Clause is required, because the Section in the Agriculture Act which was intended to deal with it has been found by lawyers not to be drafted in such a way as to cover the position. I would press upon the Minister this view about smallholdings. He has been asked a good many questions lately as to what is his policy in that regard, and I know that his answer is that he is waiting for the advice of his advisory committee. I hope that that advice will be that this is the time to go ahead in establishing smallholdings.
  Perhaps I should address my remarks not so much to the Minister, as to some hon. Members of his party who are not very favourably disposed to smallholdings. This Clause deals with a type of
  414
  smallholding which has been enormously successful in the last ten years, the type of co-operative smallholding—using the word "co-operative" in the broad sense—such as has been run by the Land Settlement Association. Those smallholdings, which were established about ten years ago, have been very successful in producing a large quantity of agriculture produce and in providing the tenants with a very reasonable income.
  During the war, critics of smallholding schemes said, "Yes, but conditions are abnormal and you cannot draw a conclusion from the fact that the Land Settlement Association has done well during the war as to what they will do in normal times." Times are not normal now, but they are more normal, and it is three years after the end of the war. The accounts of the tenants show that the year ending last September has been the best year that they have ever had in the history of the scheme. The average income was £49 higher than the year previously, and the average income of all the tenants of all the group schemes was £509. In addition to that, the tenants had the benefit of some produce consumed in their own homes.
  Out of that £509 they must find their own income and the wages for work done by their wives and members of the family. But £509 as an average income from smallholdings, none of which I think I am right in saying are greater than ten acres, is a remarkable achievement. I submit that nearly £10 a week from smallholdings of that sort does show that smallholdings can provide a very good living for suitable tenants. I hope that the Minister will decide to go ahead and develop smallholdings along these and other lines. There are a large number of people who are wanting smallholdings. The figure he gave was 3,000 applicants, who are already approved. This scheme of the Land Settlement Association has proved itself over a period of 10 years. It provides great advantages to the tenants in joint marketing purchasing schemes and in advice, and I hope that as soon as he can, the Minister will agree to a further development of land settlement groups on the lines of the Land Settlement Association.
  5.45 p.m.
  Major Wise: I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Newbury

  415
  (Mr. Hurd) is not in his place at the moment, because of all the dismal speeches on agriculture in general that I have ever heard, his was about the worst. I would say right away to the Opposition that if they disagree with any Clauses in this Bill let them suggest that those Clauses should be withdrawn. This is a small Bill, but a very important one. It places in the hands of the agricultural community millions of pounds which they will undoubtedly be very glad to obtain. Various hon. Members have declared their interests in the calf subsidies. I have had calves, I believe certified, but whether I received any money or not I do not know.
  One or two points raised by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) are interesting and I hope the Minister will consider them. Under the Bill, apparently, no change can take place in the present calf subsidies until towards the autumn, or the end of the year. But provision is made for the Minister to amend the schemes after that date. It may be that by that time he will be able to decide that the heifer calf subsidy should go and a larger subsidy should be given to steer calves. All farming Members will agree that in general practice we keep our heifer calves, but we are inclined to send bull calves immediately to the market for slaughter. It is essential that in the years which are ahead we should endeavour to save those bull calves, so that when we have to make a switch from our present methods of agriculture we shall have in this country a vast quantity of steers almost fit for consumption purposes. It might be possible to dispense with the heifer calf subsidy and increase the bull calf subsidy by £1 or so a head.
  The point was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), with which I agree, about the subsidy going to the breeders rather than the rearers after the feeding process has been gone through. That might be arranged by the subsidy being placed upon the calves at, say, nine months, on a certificate that a particular calf was bred on the farm and had remained on the farm for, say, a period of nine months. I throw out those suggestions which the Minister may think worthy of consideration.
  416
  The Clause to which I wish to refer is Clause 9. I find no fault with the Bill, but I think that Clause 9 needs expanding, and it might very properly be re-written. Reference has been made to the question of dilapidations. Clause 9 deals entirely with certain compensation provisions of the Acts of 1947 and 1948. This Clause refers specifically to:
  "… payments mentioned in the following provisions of this Section."
  Those are essentially compensation provisions. It may be argued that the question of dilapidations is met in the general idea of tenant-right valuations, but at the moment I think it is right to say that when land is taken over by the Minister, the question of dilapidations is governed by the Compensation (Defence) Act of 1939, Section 2 (1) and particularly Section 2 (1, b). That Section deals with the right of the owner to receive dilapidation money when land is given up. But reference is made later to a 1939 measure of valuation.
  It is certain, therefore, if that Section is still operative under this Bill, that compensation for dilapidations would not reimburse either the landlord or the incoming tenant. I suggest to the Minister that he should have a further look at this Clause. I wish to make it absolutely certain that the incoming tenant will not come into the land on the same basis as he will go out. If he is subject to dilapidation claims when he goes out, then he should have the benefit of a claim when he comes in, whether he takes it from the landlord or from the Minister direct.
  Another point is that if we accept a dilapidation Clause, we may allow the owner of the land dilapidation money when he takes the land back from the Minister, but there is nothing to safeguard the incoming tenant so that when he rents the farm he will receive the benefit of the money which the landlord has received from the State. Those points should be dealt with. Other matters arise under the Acts of 1947 and 1948 which deal with benefits received from carrying on special systems of farming. It might be that in certain cases—as dilapidation arises in others—the Minister's occupation may benefit the farms which have been occupied. In the same way, he should be entitled to introduce into this Clause the various Sections of the Acts

  417
  of 1947 and 1948 which will give him the benefit of additional compensation.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I shall be glad if the Minister will take note of the various, perhaps professional, points which I have raised in regard to tenant-right valuation. I want to simplify the procedure and to make certain that there are few arbitrations. There again, there is no provision in the Bill for arbitration procedure. I agree that provision should be made. In a general way, we loathe arbitrations. I think that in Committee we may be able to improve the Bill.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Lambert: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are in general agreement with the intentions of this Bill, but various speakers have expressed doubt whether it is wise to give the same subsidy for a heifer calf as for a bull calf. I wonder whether it would not be possible to adjust the prices of beef so that they would take into account the subsidy. If one did that I think that one could differentiate between a heifer and a bull calf and again, by making the difference in price greater between the various grades of beef, a breeder of pure cattle, such as Devon cattle, who produces prime beef, could be given a further advantage. Subsidies bring about a large number of anomalies. For instance, the price of a three or four year old farm horse, whether for working on a farm or for human consumption, is pretty well the same. It seems crazy that people will give as much for a three year old horse in order to eat it as they will in order to work it on a farm. As I see the position, subsidies are no substitute for fixed prices.
  I would like the Minister, if possible, to give inducement, encouragement and incentive by adjusting the prices. If he really wants to give a further fillip to the production of beef here, he ought to try to persuade the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to let people in the rural areas eat a certain proportion of the increased beef, mutton or pork which they produce. In Devonshire there is considerable discontent with the quality of the meat which we get today. With reference to Clause 5, I would again rather see the inducement given by price rather than by subsidy. But if the Minister feels
  418
  that it is necessary to give a subsidy for dried grass, I ask him to include the farmer as well as the co-operative society, and also to consider including the contractor. In Devonshire, where there are a large number of small farms, the contractors do extremely valuable work.
  I had omitted to declare my interest, because I really am interested in this Bill up to the hilt. I am a bit of a farmer and a farmer's merchant. One of the great difficulties of drying grass always is that the machine is static. Grass has to be transported sometimes up to 15 miles, to the machine. Obviously that is wasteful because a large quantity of water is transported only to be evaporated. I understand that there are now two efficient mobile grass drying machines in production. One is made in this country and the other in the United States of America. Unfortunately, the machine made in America appears to be more efficient. Both machines consume the same amount of fuel per hour, but the output of the American machine is double that of the British machine. The American dryer requires two men to operate it, whereas the British machine requires four men. Various attempts have been made to persuade the Minister to give permission to import these machines from America. I understand that he has refused because the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering cannot give a final report as yet. Apparently they took delivery of a machine last year, and it is possible that they may give a report this year, though it may well be delayed until next year.
  The delay is quite understandable, because they have a large and varied amount of machinery to test. Therefore, I urge the Minister to take a risk and to allow some of these machines to be imported into this country at once, or, alternatively, to give permission for them to be made here under licence and let private persons test them. His agricultural expansion programme will depend very largely on our ability to get feedingstuffs. Dried grass is an extremely valuable form of feedingstuff. I do not wish to press it unduly, as it is obviously complementary both to hay and silage. It is essential for us to produce dried grass in sufficient quantities if we are to produce more food, and I feel

  419
  it is most unwise of the Minister to deny dollars to the British farmer and prevent him from getting the very best equipment.
  The cost of these machines is not very great. I understand that the American one costs something like £2,500 whereas the English machine, which is not so efficient, costs £1,500. If the machine is proved efficient, there are firms in this country which would be willing to make it under licence, and I urge upon the Minister necessity to get this equipment, if it is good, immediately, instead of waiting another two years.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): The hon. Member says "if it is good." Is not that the whole point of the correspondence which he has had? When the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering is able to say that, it will be done.
  Mr. Lambert: I do not wish to contradict the hon. Gentleman, because, obviously, he knows more about the N.I.A.E. than I do, but I understand that they are satisfied with it. We all know that the Institute has had a great number of other things to do, and that it has been moved, and so has not been able to give a final report. It is for that reason, and because it is so essential that we should have this equipment, that I am asking the Minister to take this course. It does seem rather hard that our farmers should be denied dollars for good equipment, when the groundnuts scheme, while it is still problematical whether it will produce groundnuts, is allowed as many dollars for new equipment as it needs. The British farmer has often been tested in the past and has never failed, and I think he deserves the best treatment today.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I think I am the only Member to take advantage of this Debate so far, who has no interest to declare, apart from the interest which comes from being brought up in the country and coming from farming stock. I would not have ventured to intervene at all if it were not that I am feeling rather critical of one aspect of this Bill. As I want to criticise, perhaps I may be permitted first
  420
  to indulge in the courtesy of acknowledging the great work which the Minister undoubtedly has done for farming and for the countryside.
  The part of the Bill about which I am critical is that dealing with the subsidy for calves. The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that I have been rather critical of the Minister's subsidy policy in the past, and this particular provision, I am afraid, is in keeping with the general trend of the subsidy policy of the Ministry of Agriculture. Of course, nobody quarrels with the need to make some provision, nor with the amount of money being allocated for agricultural improvements. The only question is whether the money is being applied in the best possible way.
  The purpose of the subsidy is to ensure that calves are reared to full growth. The Minister has suggested that his policy was already succeeding, because he said that there were some 369,000 more calves in September, 1948, than there were in September, 1947, and those figures I accept as perfectly correct, though I do suggest that they are misleading figures. It is quite true that there was an increase in the number of calves under one year old during that year, but we are concerned in this Bill with the number of calves reared beyond one year old. If we take the figures for the same months as the Minister took—September, 1947, and September, 1948—the number of calves over one year and under two years old becomes 1,699,000 for 1947 and 1,545,000 for 1948, which shows a drop. I fully appreciate that I may be accused of making an unfair point, because there has not been sufficient time for the subsidy to have had effect. But from these figures, taken in conjunction with other figures available, my contention is that the subsidy is not really having any substantial effect at all.
  In September, 1946, the number of calves under one year was 1,807,000 and in September, 1947, 1,805,000, so that if we take the figures of calves under one year old in 1946 and 1947, and take them when a year older in each case, that is, September, 1947, for which the figure is 1,699,000 and September, 1948, for which the figure is 1,545,000, we find that, in fact, no more calves have been reared beyond one year old in 1947–48 than in

  421
  1946–47. There may be other considerations in the matter, and I do not want to emphasise it too much, but I think it is valuable as indicating that it is very questionable whether the Minister's subsidy policy so far has had any effect at all.
  The object of the policy is to bring the calves up over one year. In rough figures, there are some two million calves under one year in the country now. Of these some 250,000 fail to reach the one year mark. So the additional number which, under favourable conditions, could be brought up to over one year is 250,000, or something in that neighbourhood, though it may even be 300,000. These are the numbers which could be brought up under favourable conditions, and I will assume in the Minister's favour that all the calves that could be brought up to over one year will be brought up under his subsidy scheme. That means that, with a population of two million calves, one in eight calves will be brought over the one year mark which would not have been brought over that mark if the subsidy scheme did not exist.
  What is the cost of it, on that footing, assuming they all come over the one year mark? Our target is to get 250,000 over the one year mark, which would not come over that mark if it were not for the assistance of the scheme. Dividing the difference between the steer and heifer, we are paying £3 10s. a calf, and we are not paying that merely for the 250,000, but for the two million. That means that, in order to get the 250,000, we are, in fact, paying for the 250,000 at the rate of £28 a calf. As the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) pointed out, the calves we are acquiring by reason of this subsidy are, of course, what are called marginal calves which, generally speaking, are not as good, for one reason or another, as the calves that would otherwise have been brought up.
  Sir John Barlow: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how he arrives at the figure of 250,000 extra calves?
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The 250,000 is arrived at by taking the figure of under one year and the figure a year later of over one year and under two years and seeing by how much less is the later figure than the earlier figure. I agree that
  422
  there may be criticism of detail about the figure of 250,000, and that is why I said that it was something of the order of 250,000. I see that "The Times" has been into this matter and has worked out the figure rather more favourably for the Minister than I have. It works it out by saying that the cost is "at least £20." I personally put it at £28.
  What is the waste involved in this method of subsidy? For every eight calves reared, the first seven would be reared and brought over the one year in any case. We are paying for the first seven at the rate of £3 10s. each, that is to say, we are paying £24 10s. out of the £28 for calves that would be brought over the one year mark in any event. That means, in round figures, that for the period contemplated we shall be spending roughly £7 million a year, and of that £7 million we are paying £6 million a year for calves that would in any case be brought over the one year mark, quite apart from this Bill altogether. That is an exceedingly wasteful method of subsidy.
  One is bound to approach a provision of this nature in a very critical frame of mind. I realise the Minister's difficulty of devising some other scheme for coping with the problem. To do what would be ideal, and what everybody would like to do—merely to pay for the eighth calf which came over the one year mark—would be very difficult, if not impossible, of administration. I fully recognise that it would be administratively impossible, and for that reason the case which I have made out against the Minister is, to some extent, unfair. However, it serves to emphasise the wasteful nature of the subsidy, and goes to show that we should examine very carefully whether or not there are other means available which would ensure the desired result without involving all the wastage which is inevitable in this method of subsidy.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the problem of marginal land. On principle, and certainly at first blush, it would appear very much better to encourage the bringing of marginal land into cultivation, and to encourage what is so crucial in dealing with this cattle problem, the provision of food which is at the base of the whole thing. It would be far better, in principle, to deal with it in that way than by way of subsidy. The

  423
  difficulty of the subsidy is that if extra marginal land is not brought into production, or if extra food is not produced in one form or another, there will be competition between different kinds of agricultural products for the food available, and there will be the danger that we shall be merely altering the order of priorities between agricultural products rather than increasing production.
  I should like to have heard the Minister in his opening speech, not merely repeat in simpler language what was in the Bill, which everybody can read for himself, but connect up the provisions of the Bill with the whole of his agricultural policy and relate the effect of the Bill and the effect of this subsidy to the production of other agricultural products. For instance, I should have liked him to relate the effect of the subsidy to our food position, and to have said what, in his calculation, was likely to be its effect in terms of the meat ration, and to have put the whole of his subsidy policy into the agricultural and food framework. Until we know these things, we are dealing with the matter, as it were, in a vacuum, and without really being in a position to criticise the policy behind this particular subsidy.
  In principle, I am very strongly in favour of the speeches which have been made suggesting the using of money available for marginal land; but, again, there are many qualifications in this, and one must be fair to the Minister. I realise that one cannot come to a conclusion about marginal land unless one has full particulars of the amount of such land available, how quickly it could be brought into production, what it would produce, and matters of that kind. It is a question of coming to a practical conclusion about it, and this House cannot do that, unless it has all the facts laid before it.
  Therefore, I am afraid that the criticism that I must make of the Minister's opening statement is that it fails to relate this subsidy policy both to the general agricultural and food policy of the country, and also to the alternatives that are available for dealing with the problem with which this subsidy is calculated to deal. I hope that in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply we shall hear something more than we have heard hitherto of
  424
  those aspects of the problem which concern us. I believe that both sides of the House support the object which the Minister has in mind, but at the same time I think that hardly anyone is really satisfied at present that the subsidy policy put forward is justified.
  6.20 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Like most hon. Members I wish to declare my interest, because the principal activity on my farm is breeding beef cattle, drying grass and also selling store cattle and bulls whose market may be lost because of artificial insemination. I approach this Debate, therefore, cap in hand, with an eye to the main chance, to see what I can persuade the Minister to provide for me. Nevertheless, I find myself very much in agreement with what most hon. Members have already said and I do not want to prolong my remarks by needless repetition.
  I have a strong feeling that perhaps half or two-thirds of the benefit of the calf subsidy scheme is going to milk producers or farmers who do not need benefit from the subsidy. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will make clear whether this subsidy is supposed to promote beef as opposed to increasing the number of livestock. In our part of the world, on the Welsh border and the Shropshire hills, we have much marginal land, about which I have already made speeches in the House. A great many farmers raise calves rather than produce milk. They like to put three or four calves on each cow and then sell abundant stores in due course. These farmers, living up on the hills, are amongst those who find it most difficult to make a living, and I have pressed their case on previous occasions. But these particular farmers do not benefit at all from this scheme, because they like to buy calves and suckle them on their cows, whereas other farmers who sell milk may keep a crossing bull and want to keep all their cows in full milk production, so that, with the exception of heifers, which they may want to keep, they try to dispose of their calves to those who will rear them.
  I maintain that, despite this scheme, the farmers who breed the calves get the benefit, although the farmers who suckle the calves have them from nine to 12 months old. I think that is a fair statement of fact based on experience during

  425
  the last year, because we have found that owing to this subsidy, the price of calves has gone up. Therefore, the man who wants to buy young calves and rear them has to pay more than he did before the introduction of this subsidy. Although he draws the subsidy, he hands it over in the price he pays to the breeder. I cannot help feeling, with many other hon. Members, that the best way to stimulate the production of beef is by raising the price of beef. There is no doubt at all in my mind that such an increase in price would be reflected all along the line, right down to the man who breeds and the man who rears the calves at all stages. In all increases in beef prices we have found that that has been the case; there has been a corresponding increase in the value of store cattle and in the value of calves.
  Turning to the administration of the scheme, I want to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) that it might very well be possible for these calves to be inspected only half-yearly, say between eight and 14 months, or on those lines, so that the inspecting officer need pay only half-yearly visits to each farm instead of going four times a year. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about the standard which is required in order to qualify for subsidy. I notice that the number of calves rejected is very small in comparison with the number passed, and I gather that most dairy cattle qualify for the subsidy, which is quite ridiculous if we want to increase the number of beef beasts that are bred.
  Turning to drying, here again I want to ask the Minister to give me some money. I want to know how he arrives at the conclusion that it would be a good thing to subsidise communal plant. At first sight it appears to be a good course to take. The Milk Marketing Board and farmers' co-operatives can set up grass-drying stations for the benefit of a number of farmers on a non-profit basis and the Minister promises to subsidise their capital costs. May I take myself as an example. I have just put in an expensive grass-drying plant of the largest type which I propose to use for myself and for the benefit of other farmers around me. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would like to explain to me how I can get the benefit of his subsidy. If not, I
  426
  put it to him that the farmers for whom I dry grass will not benefit by the subsidy or by the non-profit standard which he expects to be observed by the Milk Marketing Board and other communal plants, and I shall be forced to charge them a higher price for their grass than would be the case if they were able to have it dried by one of the Milk Marketing Board plants, none of which in fact exists anywhere near us.
  There is another point to which I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, and it is that farmers who get grass dried for them at what I call a false price by a subsidised plant on a non-profit making basis can take as much grass as they wish, and so far as I know, although they might sign something to say they will use it all themselves, there is very little to prevent them from selling it at current market prices and thereby making a handsome profit for no effort of their own. I actually dried some grass for a friend of mine on a non-profit basis and discovered afterwards that he had sold half of it and made a profit of no less than £10 a ton on what I had charged him, which I found extremely irksome. I think that is a general result of subsidising any type of produce. It is much better to pay the real price for the finished article.
  That is all I have to say about this Measure except that I would press the Minister to remember that of all farmers those who are really in the greatest need of help are the small chaps in the hills and on the marginal land. Handing out enormous subsidies for which large dairy farmers and other types qualify, does not help them one little bit, yet they are the people in most need of assistance. I therefore commend to the right hon. Gentleman the statement, which has already been quoted, made to the N.F.U. dinner by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will hurry up and bring forward his marginal land scheme.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. Kenyon: In the economic Debate which took place about nine to 12 months ago, I criticised rather severely the calf subsidy scheme and I am glad on this occasion to see so many hon. Members on both sides of the House supporting what I said then. I have had a great deal of information since I made

  427
  that speech both from hon. Members inside the House and from sources outside the House, but nothing I have heard has changed my opinion. I think the calf subsidy scheme is an expensive scheme for the purpose for which it is intended.
  May I here support the Minister on one point? Hon. Members have been criticising the payments for heifer calfs compared with those for steer calfs. If the Minister is to go in for a beef policy, he should have beef heifer calves as well as dairy heifer calves. The farmer is a business man. When he rears a steer calf he has only one market, and that is the beef market. When he rears a heifer calf he has both the milk market and the beef market from which to choose. If he is rearing a calf to the stage of production, he can sell his dairy cow at between two and two and a half years, whereas he must keep his beef cow the full three years. If that costs him a winter's keep, he is still in pocket in rearing heifer calves rather than beef calves. That is one of the reasons so many farmers rear heifer calves instead of steer calves.
  I shall not repeat what I said on the last occasion, but I am very disquieted. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) has raised some of the points that I intended to discuss. The examination of the figures of calves under one year old and of yearlings gives rise to much thought. When we consider the figures for the 1930's and compare them with those of today, we find that there has been a very big change. In 1938 the calves under one year old numbered 1,840,779. That group in 1939 numbered 1,866.882. They had increased by 26,000. That increase was due, no doubt, to importations from Ireland and, I believe from Canada. That was an increase in the second year. When we come to consider the figures today, we find that the position is completely reversed. In 1942 the number of calves under one year old was 1,844,000. A year later that same group fell to 1,726,000, a fall of 118,000. From that year the figures fell by varying numbers, until we come to 1947, the figure for which year, I think, was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry. In 1947 we had
  428
  1,798,000 calves under a year old. I am quoting in all these figures the 4th June figures, and not those quoted by my right hon. Friend. On 4th June, 1948—12 months later—that same class numbered 1,602,000, a fall of 196,000. That is a very disquieting figure.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: By "the same class" my hon. Friend means the same class of cattle one year later?
  Mr. Kenyon: That is right—the same class 12 months older. I am fully aware that a certain number of those calves would be killed for veal. I am also aware that through disease a certain number would die. However, I cannot understand—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will throw some light on this figure—where the big discrepancy arises. I suspect that a large number of these calves at the age of 12 months are going to the slaughterhouses because farmers are not able to keep them through the winter.
  In the 1930's the rearing farms of this country were not meeting the requirements of the dairy farmers or the beef farmers. The result was that we had to import cattle. Today the rearers are not meeting the demands of the dairymen and the beef men. Yet still there is this loss. It is useless to give a subsidy to increase the number of calves unless in some way we stop the wastage after they have reached the age of 12 months. When I come to examine the figures of the veal calves going into the market, I find that over the last four or five years the figures have remained steady. Therefore, I am at a greater loss to understand why there should have been this increase in the loss in the last year. It is not due to anything connected with the subsidy, for the subsidy has not yet had any effect upon the calves of from 12 months to two years old. I say that this is a serious thing and requires some examination by the Ministry.
  The Minister asked us to give him some idea of what we thought would bring about an increase in the cattle stocks. Let me say this quite frankly. I think this question is one of the most difficult the Ministry has to face, for the Ministry is trying to impose upon the tremendous dairy stock, an additional beef stock for meeting some of the requirements of our people by increasing

  429
  the meat ration. It is a tremendous task; it is a very difficult task, because beef calves, dairy calves, pigs and poultry all make demands upon the same things—feedingstuffs. I say to the Minister that if he can give an increase of feedingstuffs for calves he will increase the calf population without any subsidy at all. The farmers are saying, "Give us feedingstuffs and we will rear the calves without the subsidy." I have heard that at meeting after meeting.
  I think the Government should make a declaration to the farmers on this feedingstuffs issue. There is nothing more frustrating, there is nothing which more prevents farmers from getting on with the job, than the recognition that they cannot have the feedingstuffs. If the Government are unable to buy feedingstuffs abroad because of the financial position, let them come out openly and say so. Let them tell the farmer quite frankly that it cannot be done, and throw him upon his own resources. I think that then he would have an answer to the position. The Government have made a move in removing the subsidies from feedingstuffs. That will bring the farmer more and more to face the real position. I deprecate entirely the artificial position that is created by subsidies.
  When we start to rear calves, we must have either milk or calf meal of some description. Without those two things, or one of those things, it is impossible for us to rear them. At the present moment, all feedingstuffs are cut off at six months. When the calf becomes six months old, it has to live on what the farmer can produce for it. That period is not long enough, especially on the marginal and hill farms, about which so many Members have spoken. We cannot rear calves in the best way on the hill and marginal farms when feedingstuffs are cut off at six months. We simply cannot do it. So I say that if we can have a little more meal—and the farmer has to watch this point very closely—we can rear more calves, and if we can have it for a little longer then more calves would be reared.
  I fear the subsidy has the following result in many cases. The farmer has been rearing, say, ten calves a year. He receives a certain amount of feedingstuffs for the ten. A subsidy is offered of
  430
  £3 10s. per calf. He wants to obtain the subsidy, so he pushes in two or three more calves, and rears them upon what the ten should have. The result is that the 12 or 13 calves, at the end of six months, are not what they ought to be; they have been punished. I recently visited farm sales in the marginal areas of Lancashire and I say quite frankly that some of the calves I saw which had been punished in this way were a disgrace. I do not know whether the inspector, when he goes round, passes them or not, but he certainly ought not to do so. That is the danger of this subsidy.
  I put another point to the Minister. although it is perhaps more a point for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the marginal and hill farms, the farmers require easier credit facilities; they require more credit from the banks than they are getting. The banks will grant credit to the big farmer, but when they are asked to grant credit to the hill farmers and marginal farmers they become a little sticky. The difficulty we have to face is that the calf subsidy is given and the calf is examined at nine months old it is three or four months before the subsidy is paid. The farmer has reared his calves before he gets the subsidy, which proves that he did not need the subsidy to rear them.
  Mr. G. Brown: I ask my hon. Friend whether he would apply the same argument to an increase in the price of beef at the other end. Would be say that as a person does not get it until the animal is grown to full maturity and is killed he does not need a subsidy?
  Mr. Kenyon: I am not saying anything of the sort. As I have already pointed out, seven or eight calves were reared without any subsidy at all. To push another one in proves that, when the farmer does not receive the subsidy for the whole of the eight until 12 months have passed, he does not need the subsidy for the one. The present prices of beef and milk are all the incentive the farmer requires, provided he can get the feedingstuffs to start off his calves and provided he can get better credit facilities. When the farmer goes out to set up a stock of calves, it is not the immediate need that he has to watch. He has to watch his winter fodder position for one or two years, and he requires something that will enable him to develop his land

  431
  so that he can produce that winter fodder, because it is upon the winter fodder that he decides the number of calves his farm is going to carry.
  Tremendous subsidies are given—in the last economic Debate a fortnight ago, we were told that agriculture had to have pumped into it something like £450 million for the next four years in machinery, buildings, and so forth; but what we really need is more fertile land. If we can fertilise the marginal land and the hill land better, so that it will produce the winter fodder to keep the cattle over the winter, we shall increase the beef stocks and dairy stocks of this country. The Minister asked how can we increase the beef stocks? Let the Ministry of Agriculture purchase beef stock and loan it to the marginal and hill farms, and let the farmers repay when they sell the offspring of the cattle and repay the subsidy. They would do that, but they want help in the beginning. If the Minister loaned out to the farmers proper beef stock—Galloway, Hereford and Aberdeen Angus heifers, so that they could start a breeding herd for themselves, then we should develop the beef-breeding herds on the hills.
  I have no evidence whatever that the calf subsidy will bring about the result which the Minister expects. I feel that it is a costly way of developing our beef stocks. Fertile land is the mainspring upon which all stock grows. Develop the land and the farmer will provide the stock. If the money which is given in subsidy were directed towards the fertility of the land and towards the development of the hill and marginal farms, we should produce what the Minister is trying to produce, a good beef stock and dairy stock, and both would contribute to the welfare of the people in food.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. York: The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) made a most interesting speech, although I think he rather overstated his case. He made one point which struck me forcibly, which was that the Ministry of Agriculture do not seem to have considered the scheme in relation to the correct set of statistics which are available. That is a habit of theirs. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T.
  432
  Dugdale) mentioned that the relevant figures to consider concerned the crop between 4th September, 1948, and 4th December, 1948. The hon. Member for Chorley also said that the relevant figures to take were the one-year and two-year figures. The Minister of Agriculture in his recent statement made the same mistake about the figures because he took, for purposes of comparison, one 4th December return against the next year's 4th December return. He failed to appreciate that the fall which was taking place was between 4th September of last year and 4th December of last year.
  Mr. T. Williams: I think the hon. Member is mistaken, and that it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who used those figures.
  Mr. York: I was quoting from a statement in the "Farmer and Stockbreeder," made by the Minister of Agriculture within the last fortnight. I have not a copy of it with me. It made also a headline in all the papers: "Increase in pig population." Perhaps I had better not pursue that subject too far, Mr. Speaker, or I may be getting a little too far from the Bill. I want to impress upon the Ministry of Agriculture that they have to be far more careful which set of figures they use when they are discussing the merits or otherwise of any particular scheme.
  Mr. G. Brown: Looking at the figures here, I do not quite follow the point which the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) is making. Both between September and September and December and December there was an increase upon the year's figures. In each case the later figures were bigger than the previous ones. In the light of this, I do not see the point about which set of figures one should take. Of course, one must compare like with like.
  Mr. York: That is not the point I was making. I am comparing the September figures with the December figures.
  Mr. Brown: That is the whole point. If one takes even that comparison, which I do not think is a fair comparison, one sees that the December, 1948, figure is bigger than the September, 1948, figure.
  Mr. York: Perhaps I have misled the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I did not mention what I was talking about. I am talking about steers under one year old. The actual figures are: 4th September, 1948, 379,000; 4th December, 1948, 369,000. There has been a fall of steers under one year within that period of three months.
  Mr. Brown: I wish to pursue this point, because I think that if we get to the bottom of it we shall find there is really not much in it. Am I not right in thinking that during that quarter of the year—any Scotsman can follow this point—there will be less calving in beef herds and much less retention of steers than in the earlier part of the year, when the price of milk is different and there is a much more natural time for the calving of beef herds? One does not need to stimulate them.
  Mr. York: There was no need for that explanation on the part of the Minister. I am trying to impress on him that his policy is open to criticism on the statistics that are available. I have taken far longer on this point than I meant to. I would impress upon the hon. Gentleman the necessity of making certain that the subsidy is producing the results that he wants. I leave the matter like that, because there are other things that I want to say.
  One of the points I want to take up is whether, in fact, the whole policy of the calf subsidy is right or wrong. The hon. Member for Chorley says that it is wrong but, like everybody else and like myself, he was unable to put forward a really constructive suggestion of what to put in its place. I do not like this subsidy suggestion. The policy that we all wish to pursue is to get more steer calves reared from one year, and then as stores. So long as we cannot find an alternative, I am prepared to support this policy. The criticism I make of the policy, destructive criticism I am afraid because again I have not got an alternative, is that I do not believe that it does the two things it was really intended to do. Also, I am sure that the marginal farmer is the man whom we are missing out in this Bill. I am convinced that the marginal farmer could do more than farmers in any other part of the country to increase our beef supply.
  434
  The other point is the controversy about the price of bullocks and heifers. I want to remind the Ministry of Agriculture that the matter is not quite so simple as has been represented by some hon. Members, and in particular by the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise). I forgot to declare that I am also a breeder of calves—but I think everybody knows it. One gets rid of one's calves. Mine being a dual-purpose breed, I naturally try to find somebody to take them on, including the Ministry of Agriculture or anybody else. It is obviously in the interest of the country that they should be reared. There are parts of the country which, before the war, used to fatten heifers because the land was said to be too rich for fattening bullocks. It is therefore essential that we should consider all the varieties and the differences that take place up and down the farming land of this country, before coming to any conclusion about the policy to be pursued. It is my opinion, for what it is worth, that the Ministry have more or less take a middle course. I am prepared to say that their balance of prices is correct.
  I am most distressed to find another instance of the Ministry taking subsidies off feedingstuffs and putting them on in another form. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond dealt with that point fairly fully. To me it seems complete nonsense. I do not understand why one set of taxpayers should be subsidised, while another set is not to be subsidised. The individual farmer may not receive a subsidy, but the farmer who bands together with two or three others is to be subsidised. That is obviously most unfair discrimination between taxpayers. If the Ministry consider their policy to be right and proper, I should like to see them prepared to subsidise both the private farmer and the farmers who join together in a co-operative society.
  I want to reinforce a point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond. Whenever a Government is not quite sure of the policy it is pursuing, it produces a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, and this is one of those cases. We have here a conglomeration of measures which makes it impossible for those who have to study agricultural legislation to follow all the ramifications

  435
  of the policy of the Ministry. We shall shortly need some consolidating legislation to put the assorted miscellaneous provisions into a permanent Act so that we can follow the law on the subject without spending undue time on it.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot: Like the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), I must declare my interest in the first three Clauses of the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member, I do not propose to enter into the realm of statistics because those of us who have some small knowledge of agriculture would do very much better to tell the House that which comes from our knowledge than to go into figures which may or may not be correct.
  I recognise that my right hon. Friend has given very great consideration to the calf subsidy. Nevertheless, I am not altogether happy about it. A great deal has already been said against it. I must say that I believe it to be costly and difficult to administer and that it will lead to a good deal of wangling. I believe that the subsidy goes in part, but in part only, to people who should not get it, and that in part it also goes to certain farmers who do not really need it. In short, I believe that the calf subsidy does not achieve what my right hon. Friend desires. Reference has already been made to the cost of the subsidy, and the number of inspectors, and I do not propose to add anything further. Reference has been made to the way in which wangling can take place. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me how one of his inspectors will distinguish a calf which he inspects nine months after it is born and say whether or not it was born before or after 21st August, 1947. It cannot be done. Clearly a number of calves born before that date will get through, and it is a serious matter in view of the fact that the subsidy may run for only three years.
  I believe that the subsidy is not going to the right people. I want to correct something said by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd). He complained that in certain instances the subsidy was going almost wholly to feeders. I do not believe that to be correct. I know a little about the suckled calf market in my own part of the country and on the
  436
  Border I am convinced the subsidy is reflected in the prices which are being paid for suckled calves. I want to be fair to the Minister, and therefore I make that point in his favour. On the other hand, it is undesirable that the subsidy should go to dairy farmers for their heifer calves because they do not really need it. Everyone will agree that if anybody goes in for farming and the land is suitable he generally goes in for dairy farming because it is the most profitable. We must however look a little deeper. It seems to me that the dairy farmers will be encouraged to rear second-rate calves and that ultimately we shall find that we are concentrating on quantity rather than on quality. My right hon. Friend certainly would not desire that. Therefore, either the subsidy should not go to the heifer calves at all or the standards applied by the Ministry's inspectors should be very much more stringent than they are today.
  I do not like criticising anything in this House unless I am able to give an alternative. My right hon. Friend might ask what I suggest as an alternative in this case. I agree with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the extreme difficulty of providing an alternative policy. Nevertheless, I want in a humble way, to suggest a few considerations to my right hon. Friend. I think we should concentrate on obtaining more milk from the existing number of dairy cattle. We should also encourage marginal farms. We should encourage hill farms, particularly hill farms in Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the feedingstuffs shortage is the limiting factor at the moment. It is also true that a cow giving say 550 gallons of milk a year, which is, I believe, the national average, eats about the same as one giving 700 gallons.
  In other words, if we are to have more dairy cows, as it appears we are, they will eat more feedingstuffs. But we want to conserve our feedingstuffs. Why not therefore aim at increasing the output per cow? I speak about this with some diffidence. I am not a dairy farmer, but I am told on all hands that milk recording is the way to achieve better results. I believe that in England and Wales only one herd in eight is at present recording its milk production. The Parliamentary Secretary

  437
  should consider this, and later perhaps some part of the subsidy might be devoted to providing a premium on milk coming from recorded herds in so far as those recorded herds are giving a minimum quantity of milk per year.
  My next point relates to marginal farms. Officials are wonderfully ingenious people and they can generally produce a policy if they are given the broad lines on which to work. I should like to see the Minister set up a working party of his officials to work out a policy for the marginal farms.
  I speak as a hill farmer, and now turn to our hill farms which produce hardy beef cattle. I am very sorry that no reference has yet been made to Scotland. I was glad to see the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross, Western (Mr. Snadden) here earlier and I hope that he will speak in order to reinforce what I say from the opposite side of the House and thus strengthen the plea for the hill farms, particularly in Scotland. Admittedly, the hill farmers receive a certain amount of assistance under the Hill Farming Act, but they can make a far greater contribution to the output of beef cattle than they do now.
  At the outset we must understand the facts of the case and the problem facing us. The hill farms produce hardy beef cattle which are subsequently fattened up on low ground farms. In some cases, as in the Border where we have small hill farms compared with those in the highlands, we have to sell off our bull calves if we are breeding, as I am breeding, Black Galloways, because the heifers are the important animals. But many farmers, even in the Border, can keep their bull calves, and still more is this true in the great expanses of the highlands. Where highland cattle and the cross highland cattle are concerned, most of the bull calves will remain on the hills not merely for one year but for two years.
  I want here to make a small interjection which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might note, apropos the plan which has recently been put forward for producing better quality beef. We have no objection whatever to weight being the criterion, but some of us who take an interest in keeping these bullocks on the hills for two years, on land on which it is right and proper they should graze, object to the idea that the yardstick in
  438
  defining heavy cattle should be by means of looking at the number of teeth—the six teeth proposal, which the Minister will understand very well. Only recently I received a letter from a friend of mine who for years has been advocating keeping these cattle on the hills, drawing attention to the great danger that would arise if the six teeth project was put into effect.
  I want to turn back to the question of breeding and keeping more cattle on the hills. We already receive a subsidy in Scotland in respect of genuine hill cows, the breeding cows, and I commend that fact to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I think we are far ahead of the English system which does not give the whole of the money to the hardy hill cow. I am convinced that it is right, at any rate in Scotland, and I believe it is well worthy of consideration in England. But supposing that subsidy were increased even by 50 per cent., the total outgoing of money would be very small indeed compared with the huge figures of which we have been talking this afternoon. A further incentive should be given to the highland farmer to keep cattle on the hills where cattle have never been before. During the last two years from time to time during the summer I have been making tours on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and have seen some of the hill farming schemes which are being considered. Invariably those schemes provide for an increase in the cattle. In many cases where cattle have been kept before, the increase is double or treble as a result of the schemes under the Hill Farming Act. But many parts of the country have never seen hill cattle. I do not want to be taken up wrongly; I do not mean to say that every hill farm in Scotland should carry cattle. I know only too well that they could not do so, but there are many farms which have not carried hill cattle in the past which, if they had a sufficient inducement, would keep them in the future, subject to one qualification.
  As hon. Members will know, these hill farms produce abundant grass during the summer. There is far too much grass, and it needs to be grazed down. The more it can be grazed down, the better it is for the lambs. During the winter, of course, there is no grass. Therefore, these cows can only remain on the hills

  439
  for six to eight months of the year. These hardy highland and cross highland cows can be out-wintered. They do not need to go into a court of any kind. They can be out-wintered, provided they get a modicum of shelter and a modicum of straw on which to feed. Would it not be possible to work out some scheme which would enable these highland farms to receive adequate supplies of straw at a reasonable price? Wheat straw should be used for bedding and oat straw should be made available for feeding livestock. This is a big subject, and is not one which can be fully covered in the course of a few minutes' speech, but I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give serious consideration to providing feedingstuffs for the hardy hill cattle, because if he does so he will be able to multiply them on the hills to the great benefit of the country.
  7.15 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should also like to declare my interest at once, not only as a producer of calves and, I hope, a beneficiary under the subsidy system, but also as the owner of a fold of Highland cattle. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot)—who, no doubt, for good reasons, left his native heath and went to Accrington—for a very valuable contribution to a most important part of the solution of the farming problem in Scotland, namely, putting cattle back on the hills where they rightly belong. If we could do that, we should almost do away with the bracken menace. That is a point which is often forgotten. Highland cattle thrive on young shoots of bracken. If they are eaten, they not only feed the cattle but the bracken is killed as well. The reason why bracken is so widespread over the hills of Scotland today is because there have not been any cattle there for several generations.
  I would like to be assured on another point. Cattle-breeding in Scotland in the past has always been on a quality basis. Quality beef has been produced in Scotland, and it has been the highest quality in the United Kingdom and, in fact, in the world. It is essential to give encouragement to the farmers of Scotland to breed for quality. We want quantity cattle, but we must have quality
  440
  cattle as well. I am convinced that if the Minister will consider encouraging the breeding of quality cattle, the subsidy will be done away with automatically, because if a good price is given for quality beef, there will be all the encouragement necessary for the farmer to produce it. He would rather have reasonable remuneration for his efforts by way of price than this fancy subsidy idea.
  I want to touch on this question of the subsidy because the figures which we have been given are a little disturbing. The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland within the last week or two have given us figures relating to the results of the calf subsidy. We observe that the certifying officers engaged on this important work in Scotland number 34. In England they number 3,013. The figures of calves certified in Scotland are 100,000. The figures of calves certified in England are 351,000. That relates to a four months' period in England and a five months' period in Scotland. The Scotch certifying official deals with roughly just over 3,000 calves, and his English equivalent does somewhere over 120 calves. What is the reason for this enormous difference?
  Mr. Dye: There must be something wrong with the figures.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In that case I hope the Minister will correct them, because I am quoting the figures from HANSARD. There may be a difference between the English and Scottish systems, but I cannot imagine that it can justify 100 times more officials in England than there are in Scotland. The administrative cost in England is £115,200; in Scotland it is £13,000. Therefore, if my figures are correct, the cost of certifying calves in Scotland works out roughly at 2s. 6d. a calf, and in England at something over 7s. a calf. I apologise; I am informed that it is 6s. 6d. It is a difference which ought not to exist. I say that, speaking with no prejudice either way. It is, after all, the taxpayers' money. While allowing for the greater efficiency of the officer in Scotland, I do not think there should be all that difference, and I hope that we shall have some comment on these figures when the Parliamentary Secretary replies.

  441
  Subsidies form a vast amount of the national bill today, and we must make sure that every penny spent is spent wisely and well. It looks as if the number of officers and the administrative costs in England are much too high. I hope that I am wrong, but on the face of it I do not think I am. I believe this to be a useful Bill, but I do not like the subsidy principle, and I hope that the practice of paying better prices for good quality produce will be reintroduced in its place. I am sure that then, as far as Scotland is concerned, we shall get results. The result we all want is more beef in this country: that is what we are after.
  I wish to put in a plea for that greatest of all Scottish breeds, the Highlander. The three breeds which are at the moment at the top of the tree were mentioned by the Minister: the Aberdeen Angus, the Galloway and the Hereford—excellent beasts, all of them. But for hardiness—which, after all, is very important—the Highland cattle cannot be beaten.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot: Or the cross-Highlander.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was just coming to that. There is not a better beef-producing beast than the cross-Highlander, whose hardiness is as great as that of its original Highland forbears. It is of the greatest importance to go in for hardiness, so that there will be no need to provide covered courts and buildings. Even in the terrible winter of two or three years ago my own Highland cattle never came in at all; they had no shelter of any sort or kind, yet four or five calves were bred in the middle of that winter, in the open, without any assistance at all. There were 40 degrees of frost when a neighbour of mine had a calf born on the hillside, where it lay for 48 hours before being rescued; its mother, who was badly damaged at the birth and was not expected to live, was as right as rain within a week. The Highlander is an invaluable breed which has been allowed to decline; that should never have been allowed to happen. The only reason I can think of is because it matures a year later than the other breeds. But the cross-breed matures more quickly and retains its hardiness. What more can anyone want. I trust that in the conversation now taking place on the Government Front Bench the
  442
  Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland is saying: "He is right. That is what we have got to do."
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: The last time we discussed agriculture the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) followed me in the Debate, and I remember that he gave me a little advice. Today we are unanimous in our purpose: to produce a greater quantity of beef in this country. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member that we can produce the best beef in the world. Too often consumers in our towns are under the impression that the best beef comes from Argentina. Their beef may be good, but the best beef is produced in this country—and not all in Scotland: a great deal comes from Norfolk and other parts of our island home. I doubt whether national boundaries count very much. Our forefathers, in all parts of these islands, did their very best to develop the breeds most suitable to their part of the land, and they did their job really well. It is for us to try to improve on what they did with the stock they left us.
  We are unanimous in our desire for more home-produced beef, but very few hon. Members seem to approve of the system proposed in this Bill: namely, of subsidising calves. Now, I think that system is open to question. If our purpose is to increase the quantity as well as, in the long run, to improve the quality of our beef, I doubt whether the subsidy system will achieve that purpose. Most hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate seem to have been led up the wrong path: they have looked at the figures in the explanatory notes of the Bill and noticed a subsidy of £30 million for a period. I think that that is misleading. As I understand the position, when the Ministers responsible go into a huddle with the farmers' leaders every February to discuss prices for farm produce, they take into account the overall income of the farmers; that is, the prices received for milk and beef and the subsidy.
  This—30 million is nothing extra. If it it were not paid out in this way, it would be paid out in higher prices for milk and beef. To say that £30 million is a large amount to pay in subsidy is, therefore, misleading; it has already been deducted

  443
  from what would otherwise be paid in the final price for beef. The question is whether this is the best method of getting a greater quantity of beef? I think not. If the object is more beef, we must pay for beef: and if the object is milk, we must pay for milk. If, therefore, we pay the present price plus a proportion of the £30 million for the finished article the amount of the finished article supplied will be increased. It is getting less at the moment. If an increased amount is paid for fat cattle or for milk, the values of the stock from calves to finished fat cattle or dairy cows will be affected, provided seasonal fluctuations of feedingstuffs are taken into consideration.
  The bullock is an animal that moves about the country; very few farmers breed their own stock and fatten it right through for the butcher. Bullocks are reared in certain parts of the country, and then travel to be finished in others. The price of store cattle is determined by the number of farmers who go to buy and the amount of feedingstuffs they have on their farms. If there are plenty of feedingstuffs, the price of store cattle will be comparatively high because more farmers will be competing for them. If the Minister wants to assure satisfactory prices to cattle breeders and rearers, he must have satisfactory prices for the finished animal for slaughter and an adequate amount of feedingstuffs available to those who finish the rearing of the cattle.
  We must consider whether the costs of administering this subsidy are of any advantage. The cost of the men going round to the farms four times a year examining calves, at great expense, is all added to the costs of production, and is borne by the Ministry. Cutting that out would mean a saving to the nation. By administering a subsidy like this there is an additional expense which has to be considered.
  Another point to be borne in mind in considering this matter is that it cannot be treated as an isolated part of the Government's policy. It can only be weighed up wisely if it is related to the rest of the Government's policy with regard to cattle. A recent announcement has been made that prices in future will be altered so as to give a higher price
  444
  for smaller fat cattle. If then by the subsidy arrangement we increase the number of calves that are reared but, by the price system for the finished article, we encourage them to be slaughtered at an earlier age, we shall not have more beef. That is the Government's policy: to encourage the slaughtering of the cattle at an earlier age, a smaller weight, and a policy of rearing more calves.
  The country could do that and have younger and more tender beef if it had the right kind of feedingstuffs with which to do it. We could say to the people, "You will have less beef but it will be better beef. You will not have more than 1s. a week ration, but it will be better and more tender beef and will not want so much cooking." We could say that if there were the right kind of feedingstuffs to rear the cattle to that stage, but to rear them fast and to finish them early, we want a greater quantity of proteins: whereas, for finishing off the bigger cattle, a rougher feed and more starch will do the trick. A slower rearing period will mean that they require less proteins.
  So looking at the results and the aim of the Government, and at the amount and type of feedingstuffs available, I do not think that this system of subsidy plus the encouragement of killing off at an earlier age will bring to the people of this country more beef in 1949, 1950 or 1951. Therefore, I think the Government's policy is wrong. We ought to aim at having a greater quantity of home-produced beef.
  There is another aspect of the policy which has caused concern in Norfolk and has found expression in our local Press. Not only are the Government
  encouraging the killing of younger fat cattle, they are discouraging the keeping of older cattle. In the past we have imported from Ireland quantities of store cattle reared on the grasslands of Ireland, which have come over to this country, put on two cwts., three cwts. or four cwts. in weight, and have then been slaughtered. There has been a big fall in the number of store cattle from Ireland and the Government's policy, as I see it, is to discourage that still further, for the best Irish store cattle are those of the larger weights. Therefore, not merely will there be the discrimination of 5s. a cwt. against the Irish cattle when they are ready for slaughter but, under

  445
  the new arrangement, if they are over 13¾ cwts., there will be a further 5s. new discrimination against them. If they reach 16 cwt., then the total discrimination against the Irish-bred cattle is 15s. per live cwt. At the same time we are giving this advantage to the home rearer of £4 for each calf that he rears.
  So I do not approve of this scheme. It is wrongly conceived and will not have the results which this country desires, namely, more beef. We are not looking for a short-term policy. The Argentine is one of the chief sources from which we have imported beef in the past. In the future that source will dry up for, as their population increases and the standard of living of that country rises, they will consume more at home. Therefore, we shall lose Argentine beef, whether we like it or not. So we should ignore national boundaries and local differences and try to mould our policy so as to encourage each part of these islands to do their best—Ireland, the hill farms and the fattening areas of England and Scotland. In that respect, it is of the utmost importance that the Minister should reconsider his policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) said that in order that Scotland should be able to keep more beef cattle on her hills, she would require fodder for the winter—oat straw or barley straw. In another part of this Bill there is a subsidy for grass-drying plants. As hon. Members know, grass-drying takes place during the spring and summer and can go on well into the autumn. In recent years, however, there has been a great surplus of straw over a large part of England. That can be put through the same dryers so as to extract all its moisture, then through the hammer mills and made into meal and then, if necessary, pounded together into pellets and transported to different parts of the country comparatively easily to become a feedingstuff then. I will not say that it cannot be improved by admixtures, but I do say that the straw through the dryer can be transported cheaply to other parts of the country for consumption there, and that would be a help.
  The hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) mentioned new and better grass dryers and named one imported
  446
  from America, of which I have some knowledge—the Heil dryer—which is far superior to any other used in this country or in Europe. Drawing on their greater experience in drying crops over the past 20 years, together with their ability to manufacture implements for agriculture, the Americans have produced the very thing we want. My right hon. Friend gave permission for a constituent of mine to import one of these models from America last year. It has been in operation for the last four months and the meal which it has produced is of far higher quality than that obtained from the ordinary dryer. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will endeavour to import from America more of these valuable machines, and thus increase the output of the high protein content food to enable the farmers to feed more stock.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: The Minister of Agriculture has had a very bad day. The most scathing criticism came, rather unfairly, I thought, from the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye), who is, I understand, the chairman of the Socialist Party Agricultural Committee. Quite clearly some of the calf subsidy is not going where we would wish it to go, but I have not yet heard any solution put forward from either side of the House that would make for a better method of getting the money to the store raisers of the country. The solution of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) was to have a working party of officials. I have a great admiration for the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, who are working very hard, and I do not think the formation of a working party of officials would be likely to help in any way.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot: I suggested setting up a working party of officials to work out a complete policy for increasing the production of marginal land.
  Mr. Turton: I should have thought that that matter would have been drawn to their attention earlier. When the Minister introduced the Hill Farming Bill—the chief object of which, to judge from his speech today, was to help the hon. Member for Accrington—he told us he wanted more help for hill farming in Scotland. We on this side said that the problem of marginal production must be tackled and we spent all our time during

  447
  the Committee stage in trying to get the Hill Farming Act extended to cover marginal land. That is the way the problem should be tackled. Just as the hill cattle subsidy covers cattle on the hills, so ought we to limit our subsidy here to cattle on marginal lands.
  The reason why I disagree with the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk when he says that the right way is to regard the subsidy as part of the global sum and to add it on to the price of beef, is that if we want to change over the men on the hills from producing milk under unsatisfactory conditions to producing store cattle, the putting up of the price of beef, which would go to the finishers of the cattle, would not have any early effect in bringing about that change. The Minister went too far by using the words "any effect." It will have a certain, but a retarding, effect. I ask the Minister to see whether he can tie up this subsidy more with the question of the marginal farms.
  I have one request to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor told us a few nights ago that the Government were going to extend the provisions with regard to marginal production. It is very important that marginal farmers should know what the Government are doing, and intend to do, to help them. I do not believe that a single Member in this House, with the exception of the Minister, could tell me, if I were to ask, under what Measure the present marginal production grants are paid. That provision, I believe, is to be found in Section 25 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). The time has come when all farmers should know about that marginal production grant, in which Scotland has a tremendous advantage.
  Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that whatever benefits or advantages are available to Scotland under the marginal land scheme are available also to England and Wales. I made an announcement to that effect several days ago.
  Mr. Turton: That is my point. Although those benefits are available, England has not taken advantage of
  448
  them because no publicity has been given to the marginal land schemes. I beg the Minister to include these marginal land provisions in the form of a Clause to the Bill. There can be harm in including them in a Measure which deals chiefly with marginal land, so that all farmers may know how they can obtain benefit and improve their land.
  I want to underline the question of administrative cost, which was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will explain not only the disparity between England and Scotland in the cost of administration—the far greater expense of administration in England than in Scotland is truly alarming—but will explain also why in England the cost of administration works out at 6s. 6d. per head of animals examined when the certifying officer should receive only 3s. 6d. per head.
  That comparison is very curious. Presumably it can only mean either that there are some tremendous expenses apart from those of the certifying officers, or that each calf is examined on an average nearly twice before it is passed for subsidy. But that, of course, is very unlikely. Normally, good calves can be easily distinguished and very few farmers of my knowledge have had calves rejected for subsidy. If the animals are in good stock they usually receive a subsidy.
  I ask the Minister to look into the whole question of administration on the lines very clearly put forward by my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). The present methods seem to be a very wasteful way of administering the subsidy. The subsidy is, I believe, the best means we can at present devise to help the marginal farmer. It is a matter of great urgency that we should get more meat produced in this country, especially when the carcase ration is down to 10d. and may well be down, in a fortnight, to 8d. For that reason I hope that members of the Socialist Party will not destroy their Minister when he is trying to help them to get more meat than we are likely to get from the Minister of Food.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Alpass: No one can doubt that there is a great and urgent

  449
  need for a very large increase in the livestock of the country, especially beef animals, but many of us doubt whether the proposals contained in the Bill are the right methods for producing the desired result. Many farmers have throughout their farming career reared calves as a normal part of their farming practice. Therefore, to give these people a subsidy will be to make them what is really a gift.
  In introducing the Bill the Minister said he would welcome any constructive suggestions to help achieve the results which, I think, the whole House desires. I have two suggestions which I offer to him. I sometimes wonder whether good results might be produced by the promulgation of an order prohibiting the slaughter of calves which were certified as fit to be reared. My other suggestion is whether, if no other method than the present very doubtful one can be devised, plans could be based upon the increased number of calves which had been raised over the last three years, taking the average of each.
  One or two speakers opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), spoke about the need for altering the price structure. I do not think there is any need for altering the price structure. I feel that present prices for milk and beef are in themselves, and ought to be, sufficient incentive for the production of milk and beef. That is confirmed by the opinion given to me by one of the largest farmers in the West of England. When the prices were announced after the consultation of last February, I asked him his opinion and he told me quite frankly that in his opinion they were over-generous. He is a practical farmer of very great experience and if I gave his name to the hon. Member for Newbury the hon. Member would recognise him as a great authority and not doubt his opinion. If that is the case, what is the need for this continual talk about increasing prices? I have yet to learn of any farmers who know anything about the business who are not making a good living out of it.
  Mr. Boothby: Would the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) put a little greater emphasis upon quality?
  Mr. Alpass: I did not quite follow that interruption.
  Mr. Boothby: A higher price for quality is the only alteration which I want to see in the price structure. I do not want even a global increase in the total, but I want greater emphasis put on quality.
  Mr. Alpass: I think there is sufficient already to induce farmers to produce the best quality in all stages of food production. In Clause 4 there is the proposal to increase and develop artificial insemination centres. Fairly recently a centre was established in the South-West of England and many of my farming friends tell me that already it has produced very large and beneficial results. The quality of the stock has been improved and we are gradually—in some cases rapidly—getting rid of what was regarded as a very serious evil, the old scrub bull. I hope that as a result of this proposal in the Bill to increase the centres that obnoxious animal will be entirely eliminated from the herds of the country. May I utter a word of criticism in connection with the proposal. I am opposed on principle to giving public money to individuals, whether it is for industry, farming, or anything else. I think it is a wrong principle and we would much rather that the Minister stipulated that instead of any money being given by way of grant, it should all be by way of loan. Perhaps this could be effected in Committee. The State would then have some assets in the money invested in these schemes.
  I think one of the earliest of the grass-drying schemes was started in my constituency. I had the pleasure of visiting it a few months ago and went very carefully into the question of whether it was appreciated. Those in charge told me that there is a growing appreciation on the part of the farmers in my Division and within a fair radius of the centre. This could be one of the means of materially contributing to supplying what is lacking in the matter of imported feedingstuffs.
  When I was connected with the war agricultural committee of my county at the beginning of the war, farmers were urged to plough up land. Dairy farmers were told that they had to plough up their land and grow cereals. Some of them had never done that; they were what we call in the West of England "cow grazers" and they bought feedingstuffs and milked cows,

  451
  but did nothing else. I do not call that farming. They said, "If we have to plough up land we shall have to reduce our herds." But I know some farmers who ploughed up a large proportion of their farms but did not reduce their herds. They increased them and increased their milk production. They did not buy a single ounce of feedingstuffs since the order to plough was given them. I do not say that that can be done generally, but it shows what can be done by determination, energy and the application of science to the work of food production. I hope these schemes will be increased, and whether it is by means of the system employed in my Division, or that which we have seen in Essex, where they were grinding the grass into meal, I think they will supply a great want.
  The part of the Bill I welcome most heartily is Clause 7. It is suggested, and I think it true, that in the past local authorities have been very loath to put into operation their powers to prohibit the sale of infected milk or milk suspected of infection, because they feared they would have to pay a very large sum in compensation if the milk, on examination and analysis, was found not to be infected. When the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, that fear will be removed and I hope that the Minister of Health will see to it that authorities put this provision into operation, so that there may be no fear of infected milk being sold and so that herds can be cleaned up and people who drink this very necessary food can be sure that they are drinking an article of real quality and purity. I hope I shall have the pleasure of serving on the Committee upstairs which considers the Bill. I am sure the Minister will be pleased carefully to consider any constructive suggestions for producing the result we all desire.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Vane: At least the right hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed at the response to his invitation to hon. Members to offer suggestions about how the Bill might be improved. There have been many suggestions from both sides of the House and there has been unanimity that the first part of the Bill is worthy of considerable improvement.
  452
  I wish to reinforce the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise) that Clause 9 should be re-drafted and all doubt about it cleared up. The hon. and gallant Member has had wide experience of agricultural valuations, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and give due weight to the hon. and gallant Member's criticisms. Half-way down the first Subsection of that Clause there is a retroactive sentence. I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to think that in my view he should not be entitled to the same tenant right claim as any other tenant, but I have never heard anyone disputing the Minister's right when any of these claims have been settled, and I wonder whether he is not opening the door to a great deal of administrative difficulty and not in the end recovering very much due to him. It is a small point, and I should think the sentence would be better left out.
  In regard to the more important part of the Bill, I think the Minister should be congratulated on his modesty. When we have discussed earlier agricultural Bills he has always made very wide claims and spoken of agricultural charters, and so on. But to this Measure he gives only the modest title of "Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill." Then in the first three Clauses we find that we are being asked to consider the expenditure of something like £30 million. Even in these days of extravagant expenditure, I should hardly have thought that £30 million could fairly be described as a "miscellaneous provision." At least we agree on the main problem we are trying to solve, and there is, I think, a fair measure of agreement that the right hon. Gentleman's way of solving it is not the best way.
  I do not want to harp on the conditions in my own part of England but it happens that I live where there is a great deal of what has been described as marginal land. I reinforce the plea that such aid as we are considering should be linked with the problem of marginal land, but what is and what is not marginal land is extremely difficult to define. In order to make it clear how recent changes in farming practice have affected one district, perhaps I may be allowed to give the following figures for one part of my home county of Cumberland. I have worked out that about 20 years ago

  453
  at least four-fifths of the farmers laid the emphasis on cattle rearing, when the dual-purpose shorthorn with both beef and milk characteristics was the typical beast of that area.
  At present only one-fifth of the farmers remain in that branch of farming, and instead of there being one-fifth engaged in milk production and four-fifths in cattle rearing the position is exactly the reverse—four-fifths are engaged in milk production and one-fifth mainly in rearing. That has meant a large outlay of capital in improved buildings. There is still pressure from part of this remaining fifth to carry out the same conversion. I am doubtful whether the necessary expenditure on buildings to enable them to achieve that conversion satisfactorily is really wise at present, bearing in mind how remote some of these farms are.
  When I read the first Clause of the Bill I asked myself, "Will this Bill stop a single one of that one-fifth of farmers who are thinking of turning from cattle rearing to milk production to change their minds and remain engaged in cattle rearing?" I doubt it. This subsidy is extraordinarily generous but I do not think that it will have that effect. Nor is it on these same farms where assistance is justified that we shall find the bulk of the extra calves which we hope may now be saved from early slaughter. One hon. Member put that number at a quarter of a million. That is putting it very low; I hope it will be more than that, but it cannot possibly be more than one in five of the calves born.
  There is always a considerable danger in a policy by subsidy. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had given us a little more indication of what is to happen when the subsidy runs out. As I see it, there are three possibilities. The Minister can come to the House and ask us to authorise a further subsidy. He can hope by then to have so arranged beef prices that the subsidy can be allowed to fade away without a jolt. And the third possibility is that he can do nothing and just let the situation rip, in which case the last state may be worse than the first. We must be told a little more about what is in the Minister's mind. The end is only two and a half years ahead.
  It is interesting—and I yielded to the temptation—to read the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman during the
  454
  Second Reading of the Wheat Act 16 years ago. There are 10 columns in HANSARD of righteous indignation about what he considered to be a policy of continuous and unplanned subsidies. He mentioned the £10 million relief from rates which had been given to agricultural land; he attacked the duties on certain dairy products. Then there was this mystic figure of £30 million for sugar beet, the total estimated cost of the subsidies under this Bill.
  Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that when I made a speech of that kind it was not to prevent the agricultural industry from being helped. It was because the then Government had no policy for agriculture and all their alleged policies of bits and pieces led nowhere. I think that my general conclusion in those 10 columns of HANSARD would be along those lines.
  Mr. Vane: I differ from the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion, as I expect hon. Members do. In my last sentence, I was asking the right hon. Gentleman where this subsidy is leading. He suggests that we should authorise the expenditure of about £30 million, yet he has not given us any indication of what is to happen after Michaelmas, 1951. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I was referring, he argued, too, that the expenditure of money on the wheat subsidy would not add materially to the acreage under wheat. A similar objection has been put forward by many Members in this Debate that the substantial outlay proposed in the Bill by way of subsidy will not add materially to the number of calves reared in this country. Admittedly it is a long time since the right hon. Gentleman made that speech. Now the boot is on the other foot, and the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman seems to have changed a great deal.
  When we enter into the world of subsidies the whole position always becomes illogical. Many Members on both sides of the House have criticised the amount of this subsidy. It seems large, but when looked at in another way it is only three times the cost of one subsidised aeroplane which we are building somewhere in this country. Comparing one industry with another, it is extremely difficult to say whether any sum is too large or too small to achieve its object. That is the difficulty.

  455
  The right hon. Gentleman described the 1932 Wheat Act as a most unscientific Measure. He said things much worse than that, and went into the Lobby against it. I do not think that hon. Members will go into the Lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill tonight, but I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will feel that we have a big task in Committee in improving the first part of the Bill before we get it into the really workable shape in which it should be offered to the farming industry and to the country as a whole.
  8.7 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: A considerable conflict has been running through this Debate on the matter of subsidies. Also, what has been lacking has been any connection, or any direct connection, with the policy for the expansion of agriculture up to 1952. However effective these subsidies may be in encouraging farmers to rear more calves, I do not believe that that policy will make any sense unless the cropping programmes of wheat and mixed corn, of oats and of barley are also settled at the same time.
  The right hon. Gentleman said in his opening speech that he would welcome any suggestions as to how we could encourage the livestock programme by means other than those he was suggesting. When I listened to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) earlier in the Debate, I could not help feeling that this Bill, so far at least as subsidies are concerned, is in the nature, if not of panic legislation, of piecemeal legislation, and is not part of a co-ordinated plan. I believe that the Minister is expecting farmers to grow more wheat by 1952–53 than they will in fact grow. I believe that all the farmers will want to grow far more feedingstuffs.
  I have a suggestion to make to the Minister. The people he really ought to help by this Bill are the smaller farmers, particularly the dairy farmers. Even where small dairy farms are being run as they should be, I feel that there is nevertheless some restriction in operation owing to the calls which agricultural executive committees make on farmers to play their part in meeting the wheat, sugar beet and potato targets for the area. I believe that the Minister will
  456
  be well advised to tell agricultural executive committees that they must not expect any support for those wheat growing, sugar beet and potato programmes from small dairy farmers—those with, say, up to a hundred acres. I believe that if he did that, he would free an enormous number of dairy farmers who are producing good stock to grow their own feedingstuffs as they thought best. In doing so he would be reducing the demand those farmers would make on imported feedingstuffs, which would then be available for those ready to produce beef.
  I ask him to consider that question, because I believe that, although there are no actual directions, at the same time small dairy farmers feel that they ought to try to support their local district which has been asked to produce a certain acreage of wheat, or whatever it is. They feel a certain sense of duty about it. They feel it is wrong that their next-door neighbour should be doing it and that they should not. It is a burden which is being put upon them through their own public spiritedness and the reluctance of the Minister to give them a lead.
  I cannot help feeling that we are planning to put agriculture into a kind of Ministerial corset. Contrary to other kinds of corsets, this is not a two-way stretch corset, but a three-way stretch. The three-way stretch is first the Chancellor of the Exchequer, second, the Minister of Food, and third, the Minister of Agriculture himself. We should realise that until there is a co-ordinated policy between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture we shall never get our agricultural programme on a sound footing. At the present time we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying things about subsidies which, by producing this Bill, the Minister of Agriculture is contradicting. At the same time, we know that the Minister of Food has blundered abominably badly on the matter of imported feedingstuffs for livestock and that he was working on a completely false calculation which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) exposed in July of last year.
  All of us on this side of the House sympathise with the Minister of Agriculture. We realise how difficult is his task

  457
  and how very often his hand is forced. The whole farming community realise that. But there ought to be a representative of the Ministry of Food sitting on the Front Bench throughout this Debate, because the Ministry of Food is closely wrapped up in this matter and they have done a great deal of harm to the fulfilment of our agricultural programme.
  The Minister made some remarks earlier about dried grass and advised farmers to get in touch with the National Advisory Service. I am all in favour of the Minister and the National Advisory Service working along the same lines, but I know from personal experience that the Minister and the Service do not see eye to eye in every way on the matter of dried grass. When it is good, dried grass has an excellent protein content, but if it is not cut at the right moment the protein content may not be as good as hay cut from the same field. If the Minister will take the trouble to inquire from all the branches of the National Advisory Service he will find that there are some people in the Service who are definitely opposed to grass drying. Therefore, I hope that before farmers do appeal to the National Advisory Service for guidance on the implementation of this Bill, the Minister will make sure that the Service and the Government speak with one voice in the matter. I consider that the Minister is making a great mistake in encouraging grass drying more than silage.
  Mr. T. Williams: No.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I think that he is. By giving financial aid in this way in the form of a subsidy he is obviously giving more encouragement to grass drying. I consider that he would be well advised to put the two on a par financially. I am more in agreement with what the hon. Member for Chorley said about subsidies than I believe is the Minister himself. I believe that subsidies should not go on in this way. Certainly we ought to work as fast as we can to try to obviate the need for them. Being myself a dairy farmer in a very small way, I believe that the dairy farmer could quite well forgo the subsidy on his heifer calves. I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) said earlier this afternoon. It is in the milk price and
  458
  in the feedingstuffs and the beef price that we shall rectify the situation which the Minister is attempting to rectify by this Bill.
  I wish to say a word about smallholdings. I did raise the matter with the right hon. Gentleman in the Christmas Adjournment Debate in 1945, and he was able to give a small resettlement grant to former smallholders. I am a little worried by this Bill and what is stated in Clause 10. If we are not careful we shall find great restrictions placed on individual smallholders who may not agree with the idea of collective marketing. The Fenman is an extremely independent-minded person, and if we try to bully him into doing this that and the other, he will not do it, even though his judgment tells him he would not suffer by doing it. I hope that the Minister will not make it impossible for an individual who does not approve of the idea of co-operative marketing, to farm in the area where he has farmed happily in a smallholding, but I rather suspect that that will happen under Clause 10. There is a danger that the county councils will be forced to apply centralised services schemes, perhaps against their better judgment. I hope that the Minister will keep the matter as local as possible and not override good local knowledge.
  There is one other point to which I wish to refer. It is not included in this Bill but it is a matter which the Minister could very well have dealt with in this Bill. He has not attempted to deal with it, perhaps, because he felt that the Central Advisory Water Committee will deal with it soon enough. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943, the Minister's predecessor did make it possible for the Minister, on the advice of the then war agricultural executive committees, to certify:
  "that the annual value of the hereditament has, since the last determination of the … gross annual value, increased …"
  for various reasons, mainly drainage reasons—if there had been drainage works carried out or roads and ways or works of reclaimation executed by the committee—then the Minister could, on the recommendation of the committee, or their advice, authorise the drainage authorities to levy—
  Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member is aware that there is no reference to drainage in the Bill.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I quite appreciate that, but this Bill in its long title has nothing which forbids drainage being put into it. The long title states:
  "To amend the law relating to agriculture, including certain enactments relating to milk and dairies."
  There is no reason why the Minister should not include land drainage. It was included in the Act of 1943, why not in this one? Perhaps the point would be better dealt with in Committee. I want the Minister to have plenty of warning. I suggest that he should take Section 8 of the 1943 Act one stage further and make it possible for the drainage authorities to assess the gross annual value not on a Schedule A assessment but on a Schedule D assessment in exactly the same way as was laid down in that Section, except that he should not include the provisions (a), (b) and (c) of that Act. I hope he will look into that matter. There are many anomalies owing to the gross annual value being assessed under Schedule A. If he would give drainage authorities this power and still retain the proviso which gave the people affected the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, then I believe that he would cut out many inequalities and injustices which exist today in drainage rating.
  The Bill has had a rather lukewarm reception. It is absolutely imperative that we should increase our meat production at home. I do not believe that this Measure is quite the best way of doing that. The Minister would be very much better advised to allow far more farmers to grow their own feedingstuffs just as they see fit for their own herds. By so doing he would largely obviate the need for importing feedingstuffs. On that point perhaps he would meet with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is so anxious to save dollars. I hope that there will be rather more co-ordination between the Treasury, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture than has been seen up to now. Until there is, none of the present programme makes any sense at all.
  8.22 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: At this time of night I do not propose to speak for very long. We have heard this small Bill discussed most thoroughly from various points of view. I will merely touch on two or three aspects. I suppose that I ought to declare my interest in farming. As a matter of fact, entirely due to oversight, I have never done that before in this House. I happen to be interested in dairy farming in Cheshire, to such an extent that I had the highest milk records both last year and the year before. Dried grass can be a tremendous help to farmers. Its use and production can and should, be developed as the Minister suggests in this Measure. The amount of grass which has been wasted in the past is simply appalling. But good as dried grass is, there are other methods of preserving grass in the form of hay in some districts, and silage in particular. I have tried silage for some three or four years and I have made it in increasing quantities each year. I believe that especially in a rainy district such as the North-West of England hay is not a good proposition. There one can only make good hay perhaps once in three years and even then only part of the crop may be utilised. That is not quite good enough. In making silage one is largely independent of the weather, and one can make it at a fairly low cost, provided one has the necessary machinery. Then one is absolutely certain of having pretty good winter feed for the dairy cattle or young stock.
  However, it is difficult for a number of farmers to make silage. They may not have sufficient experience to do it themselves, although the custom has increased fairly rapidly during the last few years. I am thinking especially of the smaller hill farmers and marginal land farmers. In most cases they have neither the experience nor the equipment. At least one needs a tractor, and a buck rake, or a loader and a mowing machine to do the job in any way economically. I assure the House that silage can be made most economically if one has the proper tackle, but I think that there is nothing so expensive to make if one has not the right equipment. In that case the cost is appalling. For that reason, I should like to see silage-making mentioned in the Bill. There appears to be nothing which prevents silage being made and subsidised under this Measure, but it is

  461
  not specifically mentioned. I hope that at a later stage the Minister will show his good intentions in regard to silage by definitely mentioning it in the Bill, so that its production can be encouraged, by subsidising the making of silos or encouraging the provision of machinery for working groups of farms where it is uneconomic to have machinery for each farm.
  There are various ways with which the Minister is familiar in which silage-making can be helped. This would be a great help to the marginal hill farmer. Another way of encouraging the rearing of calves has not been mentioned so far. It is by providing the farmer with a rather more liberal supply of feeding coupons for the calves and for the milk which they consume. I have no doubt that everyone knows that some calves are reared entirely on milk until they are, say, three or four months old. Others have milk for the first month or three weeks and then they are put on a milk substitute. The farmer who feeds milk to his calves gets no allowance in the equivalent coupons in order to get milk for them. Probably it is well known that the only way in which a dairy farmer can get coupons for feeding his dairy cows is by submitting his milk invoice showing the quantity of milk sold during the previous month. He gets full coupons based on that quantity and he uses them for the next month. But a farmer gets no allowance whatever for milk used on rearing calves. The farmer with a flying herd who probably never has a dry cow on his farm—the man who always gets rid of them as they go dry—can produce far more milk than the farmer who has a self-contained farm and does his own rearing.
  Since the coupon system for feed began the man who has reared his own heifer calves has been severely penalised. I hope that it is not too late for the Minister to look into this problem and to consider whether he can help in some way. At the beginning of his speech today the Minister seemed very happy about the increased production of food in this country. I do not share his optimism. I feel that very much more could be done to increase production. That is a very large subject and I do not propose to go further into it now except to say that probably the greatest possibility for
  462
  increasing production is in the improvement of marginal land.
  I refer to land of from 800 to 1,100 feet above sea level not only in Scotland, but in a great many parts of England and Wales. There are various reasons why production on those farms has diminished during the last 20 years. But, if the Minister is really anxious to increase production, I feel sure that the increase can come more easily from those areas than from any other. It is astonishing how, in some cases, increased quantities of good quality grass can be produced by direct re-seeding. I would urge the Minister to look in that direction because I am absolutely certain that the larger number of cattle which he wants, and which we all admit the country wants, can come from those higher areas which are not entirely suitable for milk production. I wish the Minister luck with this Bill, and hope that by the time it reaches the Committee stage, he will see fit to improve it a little more.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: This has been a most useful Debate and one of the best to which I have listened for some years because hon. Members on both sides of the House have not only been critical but have put forward constructive suggestions. I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you wish that more Debates were on the same level.
  I am going to add my expressions of worry about the £30 million which it is proposed to use in connection with the calf-rearing subsidy. I do not propose to weary the House with the arguments which have been threshed out this afternoon about the amount of the administrative expenses, that heifer calves will be reared anyhow and that shorthorn bulls probably will be reared anyhow. I would like to add one more argument, and that is that Channel Island calves are just not worth rearing. The fact remains that for every calf which people are encouraged to rear, we have to pay the subsidy for four or even five other calves which would in any case have been reared.
  It is up to us to put some better scheme before the Minister. I suggest that free meal might be given for the rearing of calves. I do not know whether the Minister thinks he could adopt

  463
  this suggestion. Others suggest that the price of beef might be increased, but I know the difficulties there. Another possible scheme would be to pay £10, or even £12, for every calf reared in excess of the number reared the year before. But then the previous year's figures will not be readily available. I see difficulty in that.
  But there is one thing that the Minister could do; he could cut out the subsidy on heifer calves. That suggestion has been made from both sides of the House, and I was glad to see that the Minister came here today with an open mind ready to listen to any suggestion. I hope he will consider either very materially reducing the heifer calf subsidy or cutting it out altogether. I was going to suggest that as this is a very large subsidy, the Minister should, unless he can find something better, give it a trial, but if he finds that it is not having the desired effect he should have the courage to stop it as soon as ever he can. I am amazed to find the reaction against this subsidy. I believe that, before we come to the Committee stage, the Minister will have to give serious consideration to this matter.
  I should like the Minister to tell me why he proposes to encourage the rearing of more calves without giving farmers more feedingstuffs. It has been said time and again this afternoon that the crux of the whole agricultural situation is a shortage of feedingstuffs. I have said on the Floor of this House that I know it would be an economic proposition to spend dollars on buying feedingstuffs. We spend dollars on buying raw material for every other industry, but we do not spend them on buying feedingstuffs. It is like saying that we cannot afford to buy our seed oats which are going to bring in a harvest later on because we cannot afford to pay for them in dollars. I am quite certain that if we spent a small amount on feedingstuffs, especially protein feedingstuffs of which we are short, we should be amply repaid. I cannot see why the Minister does not realise that it is a business and economic proposition, and why he does not approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it I do not know.
  There is one other thing I wish to add which has not been mentioned so far
  464
  in this Debate, and that is that if money is spent on these feedingstuffs we should get a great manurial value from them. It is very important that we should get the humus and fertility which is so important for the soil. Every other country is buying feedingstuffs. I believe that France spent £24 million in one year, and little Denmark as much as £18 million. I think that is the most important single stimulant for the agricultural industry at the present time.
  Clause 8, which deals with training schemes, is an admirable Clause, but I should like to add to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said about the uselessness of training farmers, smallholders or workers on the land, unless there are cottages for them. We have been promised a Bill to recondition, renovate, and add to the present cottages, but it has not come along; we are still asking and waiting for it. I believe that the money spent on training will be so much money wasted unless we have the houses.
  As regards Clause 10, which deals with smallholdings, I hoped that as the Minister proposes to spend so much money in other directions, he would have righted a wrong which occurred in the 1947 Agriculture Bill under which he was able to give loans to councils in order to help smallholders, but in which he did not give the same facilities to landlords. We always thought that was unfair. This Bill would have been a good opportunity for putting that matter right. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage the Minister will not only do that, but will also consider using a little more money by way of compensation for farmers who have been disturbed through opencast coalmining. Coalmining is very important but some farmers are being turned out without compensation for the loss of pedigree herds, machinery, goodwill or even for the houses which they have had to leave because they are no longer of use to them.
  I, personally, give this Bill my blessing because I cannot at the moment think of anything that is better. But I think we are all, on both sides of the House, going to think again, because we are very worried about the vast sum of money which it is proposed to spend. especially on the calf subsidy, and I hope that with-

  465
  in the next few weeks some of us will be successful.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Lavers: I wish to say a word or two in support of the Bill. Although its title may appear to be very minute, I think we are all agreed about its importance. The Bill has received a good reception from hon. Members in all parts of the House, but what is more important, it must receive the warm approval of all members of the farming community. As the Minister stated in his opening speech, the different items of expenditure are, of course, inspired by proposals which seek, in the main, to implement the important policy announced by the Government in 1947. Any Measure which seeks effectively and speedily to achieve increased production should have our generous support. That is even more the case when we realise that the agricultural industry has an important part to play in the task which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has of solving our balance of payments problem and in his constant desire to save valuable dollar currency.
  It is recognised that increased agricultural production is essential to the national recovery and revival, and I would suggest that increased agricultural production means increased agricultural efficiency. I claim that the two are inseparable. Thus any action on the part of the House to grant finance to assist the industry will be welcomed. As we all know, that is the primary purpose of this Bill. The miscellaneous provisions in the Bill cover a very wide range of agricultural activity, including calf subsidy schemes, artificial insemination services, grass conservation, agricultural training and smallholdings, and we even notice our old friend the Colorado beetle, which is brought to our notice in Clause 11.
  I should like briefly to stress two of the items to which I have referred. First, there is the calf subsidy scheme in which the Government are assuming that the subsidies will be approximately £30 million. This is quite a considerable amount of money and in my part of the country, the North-East, I have heard people, who evidently are unacquainted with the needs of farming and who are dealing with other kinds of industry in the national recovery, argue, rightly or wrongly, that the present Government are far too
  466
  generous to the farming community, especially where subsidies are concerned. But if we are to save these costly dollar imports and to achieve our economic independence, we must stimulate home meat production. At the same time, of course, we should go a long way towards building up our herds. This objective is also assisted by Clauses 4 and 5 which seek to extend artificial insemination services and which also deal with grass conservation schemes. I suggest that this is certainly an indication to the farming community that the Government have a definite faith in this industry. For instance, Clause 5 authorises financial assistance by way of grants and loans amounting to £1,500,000. Again, that is a very important item in view of the difficulties of obtaining feedingstuff supplies from the world markets. We should build up our home resources in this respect, and I suggest that Clause 5 of this very modest Bill seeks to do that.
  I want to ask one or two important questions which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer. First, how is this assistance to be given? Will it be given direct to individual farmers? Will farmers who are anxious to buy suitable grass-dryers be given financial assistance? How will it be decided; will it be decided on the basis of a loan or as a direct grant? Will there be a financial limit or will it depend on the price of equipment bought on a given percentage? Two other points: who will give the financial assistance; will the county committees be the agents of the Government in this respect? I want to ask the Minister himself to go in for communal grass-dryers. If he does, will they be run by the county committees, by farmers themselves, through farmer co-operative producer schemes?
  I should be grateful to the Minister if he would enlighten me on these matters, because I know farmers themselves realise that this Bill was to be discussed today and are anxious for information. They are desirous of assisting the Government in an all-out effort to improve the present unhappy rationing position so far as meat and other commodities are concerned. I say this without the slightest hesitation—the Government will get the co-operation of the farmers in the county of Durham. We can pay them a very high tribute indeed.

  467
  I can assure the Minister that this information which I am seeking will be greatly appreciated.
  My last point concerns Clause 7, which deals with training for agricultural occupations. My experience of the industry in general is that there are many people who would wish to enter the industry and that recruits would be forthcoming if they knew about the training facilities and about the industry and its future prospects. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter which has not been given full publicity in the past. It has not been given the publicity which its importance warrants. I believe an increased number of recruits will enter the industry if we publicise the training facilities.
  I recognise the importance of providing an increased and more efficient labour force in this industry and that it depends, as hon. Members have said today, on a series of points. I believe the principal point is that intending workers for the industry want to know whether the industry will be a stable one. They want to know whether the efforts of the Government, through the Agriculture Act, 1947, to increase production will give them an improved standard of life within the industry. Thirdly, we need to remove the fear that the industry may once again be subordinated to a cheap food policy such as that which ruined British agriculture at the end of the 19th century and later, nearer our own time, in the inter-war period.
  These are vital points which potential recruits to the industry will reasonably want to know. They ask these questions before they enter outside industries and obviously, as intelligent people, they are entitled to ascertain the same facts about agriculture. Furthermore, they will want to know what are the opportunities of advancement within the industry. There is also the question of remuneration, wages and otherwise. I quite agree with hon. Members who have stressed the question of rural amenities, housing, electricity, water and education. It has often been stressed in the last few months, especially when the agricultural industry has been discussed. In other words, are the rural workers at long last to have the right to conditions which are comparable with those of the city dweller?
  468
  I do not think any of us on either side of the House disagree with that. I should like to know whether the Minister can tell us tonight the number of recruits who have come into the industry since the war, especially the number of ex-Service men and women who have availed themselves of the training schemes for the industry. I assume, of course, that the recruits were adults. Has any consideration been given to a scheme which, I understand, has been submitted by both sides of the industry, the farmers themselves and the men's union, for a system of apprenticeship for the industry? I understand that it has been carefully thought out, and I should like to know whether or not the Minister has considered it.
  I do not propose to delay the House any longer. I feel very sure that the contents of the Bill will be welcomed by the farming community throughout the country, and that the Bill will be welcomed by the farmers and farm-workers in the rural constituency of Barnard Castle which I have the honour to represent.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Drayson: I think the farming community are naturally thankful for anything the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives them. I am glad that during this Debate it has been made quite clear that the consumers of food in this country are receiving a far higher subsidy than the farmers who actually produce the goods. In many cases the prices that are paid to the farmers for the foodstuffs they produce are lower than the prices the Government have paid over the past few years to a number of foreign countries. The particular subsidy that is the main feature of the Bill—the calf-rearing subsidy—has today come in for a considerable amount of criticism. I have heard farmers in my own constituency criticise it, too. Some, of course, welcome it; others do not. What I think many people feel is that this should have been introduced at least a year or two years ago, at the time when we were discussing the Hill Farming Act.
  At that time Members on both sides of the House stressed the importance of developing our marginal land. If, then, we had started to assist those operating marginal land, we could by now have made up much of that deficiency in food supplies with which we find ourselves

  469
  faced at the present. The question of the fertilisation of marginal land has been mentioned. I should like particularly to mention the question of drainage, because that is now a very heavy item in any farmer's expenditure. I am glad to see in my own constituency that the county agricultural committees are taking up this matter seriously and doing a great deal of the work themselves. I feel that here is something to which those organisations can devote their energies in the coming years.
  It has been said by several hon. Members that this subsidy or any other, means very little unless it is supported by an increased supply of feedingstuffs to assist the farmers during the difficult times of the year. We are glad to see that the Minister in the coming season is to permit arable farmers to retain a greater proportion of their wheat and barley and oat crops. This will be of considerable assistance to them; but the people who really need additional feedingstuffs are not the large arable farmers in the eastern counties or elsewhere, but the small farmers on the hills and dales of Yorkshire who cannot grow corn crops themselves. I would ask the Minister to consider a free market for that amount of grain which he is permitting arable farmers to retain for their own uses. He knows that if he does not do that, he will only help to create a much larger black market in feedingstuffs. I am told that in the eastern counties of England the farmers are saying, "What is all this talk about additional feedingstuffs, about buying grain from overseas? We have it here. Why cannot we send it round to the farmers in other districts of England?"
  Mr. Alpass: What will they do with it?
  Mr. Drayson: Feed it to their cattle, of course. What does the hon. Member think they will do with it? The farmers who grow the bulk of this grain do not keep stock. They sell the grain to the Government—
  Mr. Alpass: What do they do with it?
  Mr. Drayson: Farmers are mystified by what the Government do with it, because they certainly do not sec it themselves. We have heard stories of where it is being stored—in disused aircraft hangars, with the fire brigades standing by in case the whole lot goes up in flames,
  470
  because it has been stored too long. I have been one of many who have consistently urged the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food to provide more feedingstuffs for the farmers.
  I have gone even further than that. I have attempted, when I have been travelling in other countries, to secure quantities of feedingstuffs which I could offer to the Minister of Agriculture. I am glad he has just come into the Chamber, because I would remind him of the conversation I had with him just before Christmas. On 13th December I put a Question to him about the beet crop in this country and the amount of beet pulp that would be available to farmers to feed to cattle in the ensuing year. I understood that—apart from supplies to those who made deliveries to the meat factories—no pulp whatsoever would be available for the general feedingstuffs pool. Farmers in my own constituency, who go to some lengths to obtain some of this beet pulp, tell me it is an ideal feedingstuff for cattle, especially during the winter. They tell me that, in their opinion, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, farmers would be prepared to pay from £20 to £25 per ton for beet pulp in the months of February, March and April. They compare its feeding value with that of hay.
  So I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, and I offered him 5,000 tons of beet pulp at £14 per ton. My farmers tell me they would pay from £20 to £25 a ton, so I was offering the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food a free profit of £30,000 or £40,000. I did not want that myself. All I wanted to do was to sell to the Minister 5,000 tons of beet pulp so that I could export about £50,000 worth of textiles. I am allowed to export my textiles to Pakistan. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will not go into the details of this transaction, but I think that, as the House has devoted a great deal of time to the importance of feedingstuffs this afternoon, I should at least say how the Minister of Agriculture dealt with my particular offer, when I was trying to help him to supply farmers in any part of England which he liked to indicate with beet pulp, which they told me they so much desired.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Mr. Bowles): The Bill has nothing to do at all with beet pulp.
  Mr. Drayson: Whether we call it beet pulp or feedingstuffs, I do not mind. I will deal with feedingstuffs exclusively. What happens? These feedingstuffs are handled by the Ministry of Food, and the Minister of Agriculture seems to have very little control over the actions of the Minister of Food. Although I made the offer to him of 5,000 tons of feedingstuffs, he had to refer the matter to the Minister of Food. I have a letter here, from the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in which she says that the particular feedingstuffs of which I am talking have a very limited range of use as feedingstuffs, and cannot be used as a staple food. When my farmers read this letter, and saw that the Minister of Food did not regard this as a staple food, they were amazed. There are other matters dealt with in the letter of the Parliamentary Secretary which I will not go into tonight, but the fact remains that when the Minister of Agriculture wants to buy feedingstuffs, he has to refer to the Minister of Food.
  I can recall, when we received a dollar loan some time ago, asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would give dollars to the Minister of Agriculture to buy feedingstuffs, and he said "Yes." Apparently the Minister of Agriculture has let those dollars slip through to the Minister of Food and he has been unable to buy feedingstuffs. My small offer of 5,000 tons of feedingstuffs is nothing compared with the hundreds of offers coming in every day of small parcels of feedingstuffs. Anyone on the Baltic Exchange could show a list of a hundred or more offers of feedingstuffs from all over the world. They need not be paid for in dollars but in sterling, but the Minister of Food allows these 5,000 tons to go elsewhere, and another country has bought them. If another country can buy them why cannot we? We make arrangement with Poland, Eire, and everywhere else to take our food when we cannot feed our cattle—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going much too wide.
  Mr. Drayson: I will leave the question of feedingstuffs, but I think that I have made it clear that if the Minister wants the subsidies which he is proposing in this Bill, to succeed, he must let the farmers have more feedingstuffs to feed to the increased livestock which he hopes
  472
  these subsidies will encourage. I am glad to see that in Clause 12 the Minister is given powers for the disposal of surplus agricultural machinery. In my constituency, and in many others, the agricultural committees have a vast quantity of machinery which is left in the yards to rust. Why cannot the Minister sell it to farmers, and let them look after it themselves and use it for their own purposes instead of allowing it to lie idle in various depots. I hope that this Bill will achieve the results which the Government expect of it, but unless we have more feedingstuffs for our cattle, I am afraid that its chances of success are very slender.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Snadden: As I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to reply at 9.25 p.m., I shall do my best to say what I have to say as quickly as possible. I think it is true to say that this Bill, small as it is, has provided an extremely interesting and critical Debate. Unlike the hon. Member who said that it has been received in rather a lukewarm manner, I feel that it has come under the microscope of the House of Commons and under the critical eyes of both parties in this Chamber. We have to try, when looking at a complicated, tricky little Measure like this, to help the Minister with suggestions, if we can make suggestions on what is a very difficult problem indeed.
  Most of the speeches that have been Made from both sides of the House tended to concentrate upon the unfortunate provision called the calf subsidy. I say "unfortunate" because it is not, in fact, a calf subsidy at all; it is a subsidy on yearling cattle. Any calf subsidy that succeeds in by-passing the breeder is a very strange calf subsidy indeed. Its very title has caused, at any rate in Scotland, a great deal of confusion in the minds of thousands of upland farmers, who were expecting something which they are not going to get. In consequence, there is a considerable amount of discontent prevailing over wide areas of the country. Perhaps I should say that, looking at this particular part of the Bill, I may be seeing it through Scottish spectacles. I cannot profess to know what the conditions are in Devon or Somerset, and I hope that

  473
  my hon. Friends will appreciate that I am looking at the problem from my own practical point of view.
  There is a great deal of discontent about its administration. From that point of view, no scheme with which the right hon. Gentleman has had to deal, either in London or Edinburgh, has given his Ministry a greater headache. I think that it is true of Scotland, and I imagine it is also true of England and Wales. A great deal of that could have been avoided if, at the outset, the scheme had been properly named as a yearling subsidy and properly explained to the farming community, either at Press conferences or in this House. That would have saved Members of Parliament a great deal of worry and correspondence.
  Looking at the actual problem, I think that we have to realise that we are now paying the penalty for our war-time policy. I tried, when I was on the other side of the House in 1941, to draw the attention of the then Minister of Agriculture to the dangers that lay ahead if this country became unbalanced in its livestock economy. I said that we should face a time, after the war was over, when there would be no such thing as the roast beef of old England, or Scotland, or any sort of meat ration at all. Today we are paying the penalty for the policy then followed.
  I must confess that from the start was never very enthusiastic about the success of a scheme, at any rate so far as Scotland is concerned, which failed to base itself upon an incentive to the actual business end—the breeding, the key stage or business end—but based itself upon the idea of literally bribing the breeder to carry on to the beef stage cattle of doubtful beefing potentialities. I think that is, in fact, what we have found. I understand that in England and in Wales a great number of calves are out of what are called dual-purpose cows. The English economy in terms of beef production has gone out of the picture more than ours has in Scotland. The result is that south of the Border the Government must now bring in a subsidy scheme in order to entice the buyer or the feeder to carry on something of which he is not sure. He does not know whether it is worth going to the beef stage or not, and therefore the Government must bring in a subsidy to help him.
  474
  In Scotland, conditions are different, by and large. Rightly or wrongly we have separated beef from milk. I believe that is the right policy. Hence there is no doubt in Scotland in the breeders' minds about breeding the right type of cattle. The ordinary buyer is desperate to get store cattle for his farm. Our economy has not gone out of balance to the same extent and for that reason our people can in the main get the right kind of cattle. We need to take advantage of our natural resources. I would risk saying that in Scotland the whole question boils itself down to developing the natural resources of our hill lands, in terms of beef cattle. The right policy in Scotland is to encourage the breeder to turn out more cattle by making any subsidy payable to the actual breeder of the animal.
  I am aware of the success of the hill cattle subsidy scheme, which has worked very well in Scotland. It has pretty well saved the Highland breeds. In the enterprise with which I am connected the scheme has been a great success. Indeed we want far more store cattle. I cannot see why, if a subsidy scheme is to be applied it could not be on a calf basis. We cannot get either beef or veal unless we breed the cattle first. Here we have a scheme which is by-passing the breeder of the animal. I have heard it said that it would be impossible to administer it on a calf basis. I do not know why that should be so. We have the example of the hill sheep subsidy, which is paid without even an inspection: inspection is not always carried out. I do not see why we could not have had a special scheme on the same principle. The calves would be marked and registered. The subsidy would be payable in about 12 months. It is suggested that the calves might be slaughtered and not taken to the beef stage. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) emphasised that point. That could he prevented if the Ministry officials rejected any calf with a stamp on its ear after it had been passed by the inspector.
  So far as Scotland is affected, our economy is right and there is no fear about animals not being carried to the beef stage. I understand that under the Bill, Scotland can frame its own scheme. It may be impossible to work the scheme.

  475
  which I have in mind, but if we can frame our own scheme I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a look at the possibilities of administering it, on a calf basis. I ask him to make certain that the assistance is given at the right end, the business end, the effective end.
  The solution I offer to the hon. Gentleman, who has asked us to make suggestions in order to solve this extremely tricky problem, is to say that we must face this business of a great meat famine because of the breakdown of supplies from the Argentine and Ireland. Something will have to be done about it. The solution in Scotland—and I am applying it myself in a fairly big way in an enterprise that I run with a friend in the Scottish hills, where we have miles of grazing and we cross Highland cattle out on the mountains all the year round—is exploitation of the vast hill areas. That attempt should be made to provide more inducements to the calf rearer. That point has been made today from the Liberal benches and it is one that should be looked into. We must also have the right price for beef in the price structure, if we are to get a proper balance. If we are to make a real job of this scheme we must have one all-embracing policy for the marginal lands.
  When I look at the problem of England and Wales I know it is a little different. This economy in terms of livestock has gone milk crazy. I do not believe that an alteration in the price structure in terms of higher prices per cwt. is the answer. I do not think that it is the Scottish answer either. The reason is that you can get more in terms of milk. For the breeder for milk it is probably £100 per cow, whereas by raising beef cattle you get only £20-£30 per cow. There is a vast difference. I do not think that you can bridge that gap in the price structure. For that reason I come down to the solid conclusion that some form of subsidy must be offered today. Maybe it can be combined with an increase in the price of beef per live cwt. I have changed my mind since I have sat on these benches and I have come to the conclusion that that would be the best solution. We cannot split Scotland away from England on the price structure. Therefore I feel the reasons which I have mentioned are sound, and that is the
  476
  solution that I would put to the right hon. Gentleman in an attempt to help him in this very difficult task.
  I recognise that the agricultural Departments will be up against a very stiff problem in getting over the teething problems which always accompany a Measure of this kind. I have full sympathy with the officials, but now that the scheme has got going there are one or two things they must really do. They must see that the calves are marked in good time and that when they are marked the subsidy is paid in good time. It is very hard on a breeder who has taken a calf on to, say, 11 months and not had it marked, to have to send it away to a store sale and lose the subsidy because the Ministry have not marked it. Similarly, delay in payment is so great that discontent arises, and then there is not the co-operation which we all want to see.
  If we come to the conclusion—I think the right hon. Gentleman has come to this conclusion—that some assistance of this nature has to be given, I ask him to look at the short-term nature of his contract and the long-term nature of the problem. The Bill envisages assistance only until 1951. A General Election will probably intervene and some other Government may be sitting on the other side of the House. Nevertheless, the farmer who is going to set up a breeding herd must look ahead. He cannot lay out the necessary capital if he thinks that only two crops of calves will be affected, as they will under the Bill. There is, therefore, some apprehension on that point.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond dealt most effectively in an excellent speech with the main points which arise. I want to raise a point in connection with artificial insemination, a thing on which I am not very keen, being a Scotsman. The reason is obvious for we specialise in breeding the best pedigree stock in the world, and it therefore does not help us that this may be done by artificial means. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give me some figures, a large number of breeders who are worried about the future of our pedigree livestock industry will be satisfied. I want to know if the introduction of artificial insemination on the scale in which it is worked in this country has had any adverse effect, in numbers, on the breeding of the pedigree bulls of all breeds in Great Britain. It would be no

  477
  good giving the England and Wales figures. I should be very much obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary could give me the separate figures.
  The Clause relating to grass conservation is very important. Strangely enough, in the north for some reason, in spite of our climate, we have always treated grass as a crop. I can remember when a good deal younger taping out a field with string and testing various grass seed mixtures, complete with fertilisers and so on. We have been brought up to treat grass as a crop. We realise its very high protein content and its importance, and for that reason I look upon the Clause, calculated to give assistance in the conservation of grass, as being very important indeed. The cost of equipment causes concern in my part of the country. I speak subject to correction, but my opinion would be that the small portable grass drier for the small farm is not a workable proposition. It would probably deal with 10 acres of grass at each small farm, but it has then to be dismantled and taken on to the next farm, and the result is a cost which is out of all proportion to its value. We are a nation of small farmers, and the small farmers must necessarily cart their grass to a central grass plant.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to get away from his own Bill in relation to aid to farmers. If conditions are the same in the South, what I have to say applies there. I hope that when the Minister says that he will give financial assistance to the farmer and contractor, he will do it, because in certain parts of the country grass conservation is only in its infancy and the larger farmer must be encouraged to do what he can. I have one in my own county who is setting up a grass drier which gives enormous assistance to the smaller farmers. If he is not going to be given a grant or assistance in connection with the provision of plant, he will be at a great disadvantage because of the terrific cost of grass drying equipment. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing a service to agriculture if he encouraged the large farmer who is capable of putting up plant which will serve smaller farmers who cannot afford to do so.
  Has the right hon. Gentleman considered encouraging the manufacture of
  478
  grass drying equipment in this country? I am told that abroad, particularly in Sweden and Denmark, technique and plant are superior to ours. I cannot believe that we cannot produce equipment equal to any foreign product if proper encouragement is given. The Ministry might consider the desirability, on the lines of a Royal Agricultural Society of England, example of providing an incentive to manufacturers to produce the right kind of machines for our grass drying industry.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond said that he would not oppose the Bill. We wish it success. We have tried to put forward suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman on the tricky question of Clauses 1 to 3, and I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer many of the questions put by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  9.27 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): As I go through my speech I shall pick up most of the points which have been put by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden). I am grateful to him for making it possible for me to rise at this stage.
  Before I deal with the main issue which has emerged, I want to deal with one point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) which is in a sense distinct from most of the rest of the Debate. He asked whether the Bill and its policy, in so far as it refers to grass conservation, is in line with either the Chancellor's statement at the N.F.U. dinner about subsidies or, even more, with my right hon. Friend's statement the other day about the change in the prices of imported feedingstuffs in order to get rid of the subsidy element there. I should have thought that the answer to that is that this is in a very real sense complementary and not at all in contradiction to that. These subsidies—this enables me to say something which was forgotten in all parts of the House—are not new ones. This is not something which we are introducing as a new policy since the Chancellor made his statement. On this occasion we are giving legislative authority to promises made about policies introduced in 1947. There is nothing new

  479
  about this, and there is no conflict. When the Chancellor spoke about the subsidies, he was speaking with full knowledge that these subsidies were in effect already in operation.
  Sir T. Dugdale: I said so.
  Mr. Brown: I am sorry. However, other hon. Gentlemen were not so clear. As for taking off the subsidy element in imported feedingstuffs, that is in a sense an incentive subsidy. It is an incentive to the British farmer to produce his own forage crops because it is not so attractive to rely on those of others. I should have thought that in a sense this was purely complementary to the other, and that it has produced a positive incentive. This says, in effect, that it is no longer so attractive to import feedingstuffs and we will now go out of our way to give what encouragement we can to our people to go ahead with grass conservation and thereby help the production of home feedingstuffs. I hope that I carry the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond with me in saying that to that extent there is no conflict at all.
  Most of the discussion today, from the opening speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet to the hon. Gentleman's winding-up speech, has tended to turn on the question of the calf subsidy. I want to deal with one or two of the special points of criticism made on it. Before I do so, however, may I once again state what is the genesis of this policy? It is surprising that I should have to remind some of my own hon. Friends of this, because I am not the only one who has made speeches in the country, claiming credit for the 1947 agricultural expansion programme. One is tempted to wonder whether we have forgotten what was in it.
  In August, 1947, the Government set out to give to the industry, in the light of the economic situation of the country, a £100 million agricultural expansion programme, and a special price review took place in the course of which we discussed with the industry new prices to take into account the increasing costs in the industry and the need for new capital, which it did to the tune of £40 million. We had to consider at the same time, and as part of that policy, whether we would get the increase in livestock and in this, that, or
  480
  the other product, by relying entirely upon the ultimate price incentive. We decided, as I think we had to decide, that there are some things which have fallen behind because of the effect of the war and the decision on national policy to go ahead, for example with milk in a big way. There were some things that had to be stimulated rather more than the end price would do, and we decided, for reasons which the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) and the hon. Member for West Perth mentioned, that to rely entirely upon a price incentive which worked only at the end of a fairly long cycle in producing a beef animal for slaughter as beef, would not be enough to get us off to a quick start in what was, in a sense, a reorientation of national policy in this matter.
  If we cannot stomach the word "subsidy," let us try to describe it by another word. We desired to inject the price incentive at the beginning as well as at the end of this cycle. As the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) said, we decided to transfer from the end of the cycle to the beginning some part of the total price incentive. That is the answer to a large part of what my hon. Friend the Member for South-Western Norfolk said. We decided to give a special incentive at the point at which we thought it would achieve most effect.
  The hon. Member for West Perth introduced the opposite argument. Where some of my hon. Friends have said that the business end is the bullock being slaughtered at maturity, he said that the business end is the calf, and that the nearer we can get to the day of its birth the better, because then the more sure one is that the subsidy will get into the hands of the breeder and not of somebody else. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow said that was all hypothetical and academic because in buying a calf one pays a slightly higher price for it and the subsidy is passed on to the breeder because he charges a higher price, knowing full well that the animal will make the subsidy. That is the answer. We do not believe that it would be any good at all paying a subsidy on a calf soon after it is born, with no assurance that it will live for any length of time, that it will not still make veal and ham pie.
  Mr. Snadden: Is not that merely saying that the English livestock economy,

  481
  the breeding system, is wrong? I pointed out that in Scotland we had no doubt because we bred the right type and would carry it on whether there was a subsidy or not, provided the fat price is right.
  Mr. Brown: I am coming to the point of type because it has a great bearing on much of the argument. Whatever it shows, however, for the moment it is the answer to the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument to which I am addressing myself. In fact, it would have served no useful purpose to do it at that stage, for it would still have been liable to make veal and ham pie. The obvious thing was to let it grow as long as seemed reasonable and still to put the price incentive as near to the breeder as possible. I think that after nine or 12 months it would have had the right effect. There may well be something in the argument of hon. Gentlemen who feel we can rely on the full weight of the price incentive, but we should be so far away from the beginning of the cycle that it is very doubtful whether the price would, in fact, be worked back.
  While keeping an eye on the Debate, I have done some quick calculations during the afternoon. Suppose we tried to achieve the same result by an increase in the price of beef and let us assume that we put 1d. a pound on to the price, although I doubt whether that would have any significant effect; it is a very small proportion of the price of beef at that stage. We could have done that for all beef being offered, which would include, of course, sizeable Irish steers which, for our purposes, do not start as calves at all. If we were to put 1d. a pound on to the price, the result would be that in four years, the total period we envisage, we should, in fact, pay more than the £30 million which the scheme can cost us. We should have no guarantee and, I believe, very little likelihood that we should achieve any effect by doing so. That is my answer to the rather easy argument that we should tackle the question in that way.
  We have had a number of discussions as to what are the real figures of livestock. I say to the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) that it is nonsense to suggest that a proper comparison is to take a September figure with a December figure. It cannot be argued that the conditions prevailing in December of one
  482
  year prevail at any other time in the following year than December. If, therefore, we compare like with like at every stage since we introduced the price incentive at the beginning of the cycle, we find there has been a substantial increase in the number of calves. The hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) engaged himself in considerable mathematics about this and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) became involved in the same sphere. I was puzzled why, as they pointed out, we had an increase in calves one year but that in the second year the number appeared to reduce because the "Animals 1–2 years of age" did not rise by the same numbers. The answer, I discover, is quite simple. It is not usually very fruitful to criticise a whole agricultural policy merely because of an inability to make figures in the green book add up. Although I have not had time to break down the figures completely, I think that a large part of the answer is that a heifer which is put to the bull before it is two years old does not appear in the figures as "Other cattle 1–2 years of age" but appears as a "Heifer in calf," and, in fact—
  Mr. Kenyon rose—
  Mr. Brown: I should like to finish this. At each of these stages the June figures rose from 800,000 to subsequently 900,000 heifers in calf. If only something like one-tenth of that figure represents heifers in calf with their first calf, that would account for the whole of the gap mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  I think we can say that a good deal of the criticism has been honestly misplaced. If I may address myself to one or two of my hon. Friends, I say that this line of criticism about the Minister being subsidy-minded and only having a subsidy policy, is in line with the criticism we hear at other times about kow-towing to the N.F.U. It adds nothing to the Debate, but is an unnecessary denigration of one's own Minister, who has done a big job of work in this Government.
  Turning to one or two other small criticisms, the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond asked whether we felt that the money invested was having its effect. This particular point of policy, I make no bones about it, can never be an absolute, 100 per cent., bull's eye hit, and it is not a policy we would adopt if we

  483
  had plenty of time to play with and were not trying to bring about a very sudden change. We believe there will be limits of tolerance within which it will succeed, but in those limits it achieves that speed. The increase in the calves is the answer to that, and in the main the money goes to the breeder. In Warwickshire the other day I saw a very heartening example of this. A county executive committee had been buying rejects at 50s. or less in the market, more than 10 a week, and they were kept in the W.A.A.F.'s quarters at an R.A.F. aerodrome, with pictures on the wall. [An HON. MEMBER: "There were no W.A.A.F. there?"] No, the W.A.A.F. have gone. The place had been adapted and there were 600 or 700 excellent beasts all having met the subsidy grade. As yearlings they looked first-rate animals, and it was a clear example of what can be done with the most scruffy rejects and throw-outs. They were a great credit to the lady who had looked after them and they are an example of what can be done by this policy.
  Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: What do they feed them on?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Member will understand. I have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House whether we are worried about getting a larger number of heifers than steers and in fact paying for heifers which would be reared in any case. I think the answer is twofold. If we look at the figures we find that, whereas the increase in the steers is one-third of the figure of the previous year, the percentage increase in the number of heifers is only about 10 per cent. Therefore, we are obviously stimulating the largest increase in steers. It is not true to say that all heifers are going to be reared anyway. Some talked about the beef trade in this respect and said that they rear all their heifers. There is also the heifer in the English cross-bred herd and the heifer in the English commercial herd which we want to breed on and which will make beef, and if it is out of a low yielder it ought to be served by a colour-marked bull and make beef. It is important to retain that heifer. We are retaining a useful number of breeding calves as well as a number of steers.
  484
  The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) asked about the number of certifiers in Scotland and England and referred to the difference in cost. The answer is simple. In Scotland full-time officials are employed to do this work. In England we rely on part-time officials, mostly farmers, retired farmers and the like, bigger numbers of whom are required to do as much work as full-time officials who have cars and are paid expenses.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: But this is a matter of the cost being almost a hundred times more—£13,000 as against £115,000.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. and gallant Member will permit me, I will deal with the points in good time. The reason for the difference in cost, which shook me very much when the hon. and gallant Member stated it—I think it was something like 2s. 6d. as against 6s. 6d.—is that the figures as shown are not like figures. In Scotland the scheme is administered centrally, which means that the figures there are the figures of payments. In this country we do not administer the scheme centrally and the only figures are those of certification. Therefore, there is a time-lag in getting the figures into line. The fact is that if we had the final figure, instead of merely figures of payments as they are made, the English figure would be considerably higher than it is, and the cost would be much lower.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: But salaries are the main item—£10,000 in Scotland and £110,000 in England. I cannot see how any kind of final figures would alter that.
  Mr. Brown: In Scotland the figures are those of all the certifications because there is a central machine there, and the cost can be spread over the whole number. It amounts to about 3s. 6d. In England we have only the figure of the payments as they are made. Therefore, we show a smaller number. If the total is averaged a rather higher cost per head is shown, but the figures for the two countries will not be much different.
  I was also asked why we did not do something to encourage quality beef in Scotland. On the whole my sympathy was with the hon. and gallant

  485
  Member, but I thought he was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for South-Western Norfolk, who complained about the change in the price structure, which was having the effect of encouraging smaller, better quality beef at the time of slaughter instead of a big rawboned animal, producing quantity instead of quality. My hon. Friend was speaking of the big Irish steer having that advantage. It is by the recent change in the price structure to which my hon. Friend objected that we have tried to give a decided encouragement to the production of quality beef. I hope that that will serve as encouragement to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow asked whether we were confident that this would have the effect we desired it to have on beef. This, together with the free service scheme for colour-marking bulls for use with the low-grade cows and heifers, gives it a decided attraction in relation to a beef policy.
  Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Would the hon. Gentleman say what portion of this subsidy goes to stimulate the dairy industry, which is not in need of a subsidy? I should think it takes at least 50 per cent.
  Mr. Brown: I very much doubt that, but I will send the hon. and gallant Member the exact figures so far as we are able to state them or estimate them.
  I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), who is rapidly qualifying for the description that as a farmer he would make a good politician. He spent some time today sneering at what he called the act of giving subsidies just before the Election. That is unworthy of him. He is as aware as I or anyone else that this policy was conceived and put into operation in 1947, when the General Election was three years away. It really is poor stuff to talk as though this is something which is being born on the eve of a General Election for no other reason than that fact. He asked why we were paying for heifer calves. I have tried to answer that one. He was also worried about the effect of the free beef service. I think it is very unlikely that farmers will take a dairy cow to a beef bull merely to avoid the 25s. service fee. What is much more important is that we want them to take to the beef bull the dairy cow or heifer
  486
  which is never going to make a reasonable standard milker. It is better to colour-mark the progeny and rear them for other purposes.
  The argument that county chairmen have no opportunity to make suggestions to my right hon. Friend is nonsense. They meet my right hon. Friend, and we ourselves pay frequent visits to them. I was in Warwick last week, and I shall be in Surrey tomorrow, for no other purpose than to talk to county chairmen and give them an opportunity to give us advice, which in fact they do.
  I have been asked to repeat what my right hon. Friend said in regard to dried grass and about the place of the individual farmer in the provision of assistance for grass dryers. The Clause, as drawn, is wide enough for us to give assistance to dryers sited on individual farms for the use of individual farmers. Let me be frank—we believe that while there is a considerable place for grants to co-operatives, because of the very high initial cost and the cost of getting the grass transported and that sort of thing, we do not believe that there is the same ground for grants for individual grass dryers on the farm. On the other hand, there may well be room for some assistance by loan, or some other way, for the farmer who dries for his neighbouring farmers, and the Clause is wide enough for us to consider assistance by way of loan for that particular kind of business.
  As to why Clause 6 is not in the Marketing Bill, I thought of that myself when I first saw it. The answer, I think, is that it would be really more out of place in that Bill than in this. The only similarity is in the title and then it is only one word. The Marketing Bill amends the Marketing Acts and is a general enabling Bill. This particular Clause makes two very specific amendments in two or three very specific marketing schemes and we should be engaging in a discussion which would be quite alien to the discussion there.
  I have been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond about dilapidations in connection with tenant right. The answer to that is that for dilapidations the Minister is as responsible as any other requisitioning authority under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. If there were dilapidations to be

  487
  charged against us, that is the Act under which we would have to meet them. So far as the tenant right is concerned, all we are trying to do here is to put ourselves into the position that other people are in when we come in. We pay that tenant right when we take over from them, and we wish to put ourselves legally into the position to be paid that tenant right when we come out. There have been a number of payments made under this arrangement as though it existed, and there has never been a single dispute.
  On the question of arbitration, the hon. and gallant Member asked me whether there was provision for arbitration. Clause 9, Subsection (1), in its wording imports the provisions of Section 70 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and therefore I understand that that provides for arbitration.
  Sir T. Dugdale: It is important that we should be sure about this. Is that a fact?
  Mr. Brown: When I say "I understand" that is entirely due to my native modesty. Yes, it is in fact so.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) put a number of points with which I should like to deal. He asked what we were going to do about the price of imported animal feedingstuffs. The answer is that we hope to put them approximately at the price of the home-grown product so that there is no disincentive or balance one way or the other. He touched a chord in the hearts of most of us when he spoke about smallholdings. It would be improper for me to commit my right hon. Friend on the general policy ahead of his consideration of the report of the Advisory Council of which I have the honour to be chairman and of which one or two hon. Members were members. The report is nearly ready and there will be an opportunity for questions to be put to him on that matter later.
  I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised. We have heard many times today about marginal land and about the importance of help for farmers farming on marginal land. We should be careful about how we speak
  of this. One hon. Gentleman talked
  488
  about marginal farmers. Very often I have had the impression that we had in our minds marginal farmers when we were talking about marginal land. My right hon. Friend recently announced in this House—I think it was reported in HANSARD on 24th January—the widening of the marginal production scheme in this country to put it on a par with the marginal production scheme as it has been operating on a wider basis in Scotland. We are hoping now that the new scheme, carried on on a much wider basis, will enable us to give considerable help to producers who have to operate under the handicap of working on marginal land.
  Mr. W. Roberts: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much he expects that to cost?
  Mr. Brown: I could not without notice, but I will see that the hon. Gentleman is provided with the information. The hon. Member for West Perth raised a point about the hills of Scotland. I think the answer there is what he himself said about the improvement there has been under the hill farming scheme in Scotland. I conclude by saying that we invite hon. Members in all parts of the House who have contributed to the 1947 expansion policy for agriculture which has given us such good results in its first year, not to go back on the undertakings given to the industry and the promises we have made in no mean and grudging spirit on the Second Reading of this Bill. We should recognise that we owe it to the industry to put on the Statute Book the promises we have given.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to misrepresent the position in any answer he gives. What I was trying to say was that in September, 1948, there were fewer cattle than in September, 1947—
  Mr. Speaker: This appears to be another speech. Perhaps that point might be raised on the Money Resolution—I do not know. There may be no time for that.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]
  [Mr. MATHERS in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to agriculture, including certain enactments relating to milk and dairies, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a)the making out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (i) of payments in respect of calves born during the period beginning with the 21st August, 1947, and ending with 1st October, 1949, or such later date not being later than 30th September, 1951, as may be specified under the said Act of the present Session;

  (ii) of, payments to persons maintaining centres which provide or have provided, during the period beginning with 1st October, 1947, and ending with 31st March, 1951, a service of artificial insemination for cattle from beef bulls of approved breeds;

  (iii) of grants or loans to persons in respect of expenses incurred, during the period beginning with 21st August, 1947, and ending with 31st March, 1952, in the conservation of grass and forage crops;

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Section eleven of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, to the Agricultural Marketing Fund and the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund;

  (c) the repayment out of moneys so provided of a part, not exceeding three-quarters, of sums paid by a local authority by way of compensation to any person for damage or loss sustained by him by reason of any prohibitions or restrictions on the sale, supply or use of milk which is infected or suspected of being infected;

  (d) the payment out of moneys so provided—

  (i) of remuneration and allowances to the chairman of any tribunal constituted under the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, for the hearing of objections to a refusal or cancellation of registration of a dairy farm or dairy farmer;

  (ii) of expenses incurred by any Minister in providing or making arrangements for the provision by other persons of facilities for training in agricultural or horticultural occupations;

  (iii) of any sums which apart from the said Act of the present Session would be
  490
  authorised to be paid out of the Diseases of Animals Account;

  (e) the payment into the Exchequer—

  (i) of sums received by any Minister on giving up possession of land taken for agricultural purposes by virtue of powers conferred by any Defence Regulation, being sums payable by the person to whom possession is or has been given up in respect of growing crops and other matters;

  (ii) of sums received by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries representing the proceeds of disposal of stocks of tractors and machinery acquired by him under Section thirty-one of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939;

  (iii) of any sums which apart from the said Act of the present Session would be authorised to be paid into the Diseases of Animals Account;

  (iv) of any sums standing to the credit of the Cattle Fund."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

  Mr. Drayson: I should like to learn how much money is involved in the provision dealing with grants or loans to persons in respect of expenses incurred in the conservation of grass. This is a matter which concerns my constituency as we have drying plant there. There is a general feeling that, to date, costs have been far too high. I am glad to learn from this Debate that there is every possibility—
  It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DOCTORS' LISTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in which office. I trust, he will be very happy, but in which—and this is more important—I hope he will be able to play his part in ameliorating the conditions of the very large number of people whose lives are concerned by the administration of his Department. If he is sensible enough to take the advice I propose to give to him tonight, he will have the opportunity of making a good start.

  491
  I wish to raise the very important question of the large number of people in my constituency—over 3,000 of them—who have been arbitrarily instructed by the executive council of the National Health Service in Birmingham to leave the doctors of their choice, whose patients, in many cases, they have been for a very large number of years, and in whom, of course, they have great confidence. But it does not only concern my own constituents because this has been happening all over the great city of Birmingham and, I do not doubt, in other parts of the country, so that an infinitely larger number of people are concerned.
  One can well understand that on the appointed day last year there was a certain amount of confusion and that a number of doctors found themselves taking on very many more patients than they could hope to compete with. I know, in particular, of the case of a Dr. Washington in my own constituency, a medical practitioner who has built up a very fine reputation as a skilful and painstaking physician. This doctor found in due course, when things had been sorted out, and he had time to count the number of forms, that over 3,000 patients above and beyond the figure of 4,000 laid down as the maximum number with which a single handed doctor can competently deal, had registered with him.
  Obviously, under such circumstances, the local executive council have no alternative but to ask a number of registered patients to leave their doctor and find another. I do not question that, but what I do most seriously question is the method of selection of those patients who are to be removed, and it is in this respect that I seek the assurances of the Minister tonight. Obviously, the only fair method is to remove the more recent additions to the doctor's list, people who had registered for the first time with the doctor at the appointed date, and who, of course, could not have any great grievance because many of them, no doubt, have not yet been ill and have not had to seek medical assistance. Therefore they cannot feel very hurt at being removed from the list of a doctor who has not yet treated them.
  But surely there can be no doubt at all that the one thing which the executive council should not have done was to give
  492
  arbitrary instructions to leave the doctor to people who had been his patients for a very long time—in one case, as long as 16 years—and in whom, of course, they have the greatest confidence. This is what one of those patients had written to me:
  "Dr. Washington has attended me regularly for the last 11 years, has always done his best for me and now after a lifetime of pain he has at last found the right treatment, with definite improvement."
  Here is another letter:
  "My wife and I have been patients of Dr. Washington for 16 years. I have a complaint of the chest that is incurable and as he knows all the details I do not wish to have to go to another doctor."
  Of course he does not, and it is monstrous that he should be so instructed by this executive council. Here is another letter:
  "Naturally, my wife and I chose the doctor who had attended the family during our 13 years residence in Sheldon. This doctor has held our respect, admiration and confidence for the whole of that time. His patients were his friends, every individual one. Why should we have to go to another doctor when we have no such desire?"
  Here is another extract, and these are all typical of the letters I have received:
  "Are we to be treated like dumb animals and handed over to any vet that is available. My doctor has been all that a doctor could be to a family for more than 15 years, having paid particular attention to the health of my wife which is very indifferent after several operations. Now without any apparent consideration we are informed to get another doctor."
  I think it is difficult to find words to express one's shame and disgust at the monstrous way in which these people have been treated. Not only is it monstrous but it is a direct breach of faith because Ministers, in asking this House to pass the National Health Act, made repeated promises that this Measure would not interfere with the personal relationship which has always grown up between doctors and their patients.
  I have quoted the grievances of my own constituents who have been forced to leave the doctor of their choice. In the case of this particular doctor, Dr. Washington, over 3,000 patients have been forced to move. Letters have reached me from different parts of Birmingham showing that similar instructions have been given to other people in the city. Let me quote the case of another doctor, Dr. Lambie, 560, Stratford Road. He has been informed that he has 500 patients in

  493
  excess of this figure of 4,000 which has been laid down and that he must get rid of them, unless he obtains an assistant, by 4th March. This doctor has taken every possible step which is open to a doctor in seeking an assistant, but he cannot find one as yet because, of course, he is quite unable to offer accommodation to a married assistant and his family. Before 5th July this doctor had exactly the same number of patients as he has now and his practice is working no less smoothly since 5th July than it was before 5th July. It is absolutely fantastic to suggest that he cannot conduct his practice as well since a certain date merely because that date was laid down in an Act of Parliament.
  I suggest that this figure of 4,000 should not be a statutory maximum but rather should be a guide as to approximately the number of patients which a single-handed doctor can treat. If a doctor is treating more than he can look after competently, patients have their remedy in their hands. If they consider they are not getting satisfactory service, under the Act they can, of course, leave the doctor of their choice and go to someone else. The doctor therefore has every incentive to keep up his list by looking after his patients properly. As I say, the matter will adjust itself if he does not. It is quite ridiculous to think that every doctor works the same as every other. Some doctors are quicker than others; some are more active than others; some have practices topographically more compact, and can move from one end of a practice to the other more quickly than doctors whose practices are more dispersed, and have to spend less time in travelling than others.
  I ask the Minister to look again at this fixed limit on the number of patients, which is part of the scheme, and to consider whether the exact maximum number should not be left to the doctor concerned, the figure of 4,000 being merely a guide. Above all, I beg him to instruct the executive councils to the effect that if the number of patients on a doctor's list is very much too large, even so in no circumstances are the patients who have been a long time attended by that doctor to be arbitrarily removed from the list, but rather the more recent additions. I press the Minister to give us an assurance tonight that this will be done, because only in this way can the Government
  494
  keep faith with the people, and keep their pledge that the unique relationship between doctors and their patients will not be interfered with by the National Health Service.
  10.12 p.m.
  Sir Peter Bennett: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay). I represent a constituency on the other side of Birmingham, and I have had complaints similar to the ones to which he has referred. The original duplicated letter was not a very good example of duplication. It has caused intense resentment. It is almost a sort of circular that has been sent out, and there is a feeling that people are being regimented, treated in an off-hand way, after, as my hon. Friend has said, assurances had been given that the old relationship between doctors and patients would not be broken down.
  People who have had long associations with their doctors are now told that they must find other doctors, because their former doctors have more than the prescribed number of patients. It is not the doctors who have sent out the letter. It has been sent by some outside authority. People object to being treated in the mass. They like to be treated individualistically. In my own organisation, when we have to circularise our people, we spend a lot of time and take a lot of trouble in trying to persuade them that they are not being circularised, but being treated individually, that they are not being treated in the mass. It is particularly important to treat people individually in such a personal matter as that of selection of one's doctor. What has been done here is causing great irritation and considerable resentment.
  I have been asked to find out how this selection is being operated, who is settling who shall remain on the lists and who shall not. This suggestion has been made to me: "It is a bit hard that doctors should be allowed to choose the good ones, that they should be allowed to get rid of those with whom they have to go to some trouble. Human nature being what it is, the doctors will take all the young and healthy ones who do not want much attention and unload from their panels, when they are overfull, the old ones who require a lot of attention." That

  495
  sort of thing has been said to me. I do not for a moment suppose that is the method by which this is done, but it is not altogether surprising that people should say that sort of thing when they are parted from the doctors who have attended them a long time and yet find new patients going on their doctors' lists. Discontent is growing about it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I would congratulate upon his appointment, as my hon. Friend also congratulated him, will be able to tell us how this happened, and how it is happening, and give us some hope that the old, valued clients of a doctor may be allowed to remain with their doctor, and that some other method will be found of spreading the work of those doctors whose lists are overloaded.
  10.16 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): May I first of all thank both hon. Members who raised this matter tonight for their kind references to myself? May I also thank them for the manner in which they have raised it, because I am sure that it is one about which we are all anxious there should be no misunderstanding. I am grateful, too, to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) who has stressed the fact that he agrees that there should be some agreed limitation to the total number of patients that a doctor should keep on his list.
  Of course, it is very far from our intentions or the intention of the executive councils that there should be any arbitrary decisions. I think that I shall be able to convince the hon. Member that in fact no arbitrary decisions have been taken in these cases to which he has referred. Perhaps I should explain, first of all, that when it was agreed with the medical profession that there should be this general limitation of the total numbers on the lists—this agreed figure of 4,000 on the individual practitioners' lists—it was understood that, at the start of the scheme, there should be a broad latitude, because we were particularly anxious that there should be no splitting up of families, which otherwise would have arisen, had there been any attempt at the start to keep the practitioners' lists down to any precise figures.
  496
  Therefore, it was agreed that there should be latitude at the start and that the matter should be reconsidered later. After discussion with the medical profession, a circular was sent out by the Ministry to the executive councils in November of last year, suggesting that this matter should now be looked at, because there were very wide discrepancies between the lists of one practitioner and another. It was, I think, the general view of everyone in the medical profession, as well as of the Ministry, that it would be quite impossible to get the type of service we wanted if some of these grossly overloaded lists were allowed to continue.
  The Ministry suggested in that circular that the first action taken should be to try to prevent the addition of new patients to the lists, but it was always understood that the executive councils locally should decide on the action that they were to take in relation to the circumstances in their own areas. In this particular case, before the Birmingham Executive Council were able to consider the matter, the doctor to whom the hon. Member for Solihull has referred—Doctor Washington—had in fact written to them saying that he found the total numbers on his list, which in fact was not 3,000 but over 4,000 above the agreed figure, was far too much for him, and he asked the executive council to help him by trying to reduce his list for him. It was certainly not the case that the executive council were jumping in with arbitrary action. They were obliged to consider—and very rightly—the appeal made to them by the doctor in this case. They had to discuss what would be the basis on which to limit the total number of patients.
  The hon. Member for Solihull has said that, when it comes to the selection of the patients who should be removed from the list, clearly those who came on to the list most recently should be removed first. I am afraid that we cannot accept that, although it may be a convenient way in some cases. The doctor himself was asked what his views were. He felt—and I think there is a great deal of sense behind it—that if he could limit his area of operation to the area outside Birmingham where he had quite a large practice and where there were few other doctors to whom patients might choose

  497
  to go, he would be doing the right thing. In discussion with the executive council he suggested those he would wish to be removed from his list and the executive council, after discussion, notified the names after they had been agreed with the doctor concerned.
  It seems to me a reasonable and perfectly fair thing for the executive council to do. It enabled the doctor to keep his practice going over the 4,000 limit in an area where there were few alternative doctors to whom the patients could go, and he released patients for whom there were a number of alternative doctors with whom they could sign up. That was a reasonable arrangement in the circumstances. The executive council notified this large number, something over 3,000 cases, of the position, and added a note concerning the other doctors in the area whom they could approach and whose lists were well below the maximum figure mentioned.
  I think we would all agree that it is most important that we should do our utmost in co-operation with the medical profession to see that the service which is provided is the very best possible. While we are most anxious that there should be no arbitrary decision and that we should keep the confidence of the patients as well as of the doctors in this matter, we must look at the problem as it stands before us and try to find a solution which is fair both to the patient and to the doctor. I feel that in this case we have done precisely that.
  The hon. Member has suggested the difficulty of getting medical assistants. It is true that if Dr. Washington, or the other doctor to whom the hon. Member referred, had been able to get assistants, they would have been able to take many more patients on to their lists. It is probably true that it is difficult to get accommodation, particularly, for a married assistant. I do not know what difficulty has been experienced about the single assistants. It might well be possible to get an assistant into the other practice to which the hon. Member referred. If it were possible it would solve that particular difficulty.
  Perhaps I ought to add on this matter that many members of the medical profession feel that 4,000 is too high a figure and that it is unfortunately true that there is a wide disparity between one
  498
  doctor's list and another's. Therefore, it would be impossible to leave the position where one doctor has well over 8,000 on his list, which quite clearly, according to all medical experience, it would be impossible for him to deal with adequately, and for other experienced doctors to have very much smaller lists. It is obviously essential, for the benefit of the patients themselves, that we should in the friendliest and most co-operative way possible try to get some re-distribution between one extreme and the other.
  I can assure both hon. Members that there is no desire on our part, or, I am sure, on the part of the executive councils, to take any arbitrary action which will cause difficulty. The executive council in Birmingham issued a statement to the Press explaining the position and trying to explain why they felt they had to take this action. There is no desire, as some people are suggesting, that we shall consider breaking families and taking individuals off the list just because it is a few over the maximum or anything of that kind. That is very far from our attitude and desire.
  Mr. M. Lindsay: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's patient explanation, but is he prepared to look into those cases where people have actually got orders to leave the doctor and are unwilling to do so because they have been with him for so many years and consider that they have special reasons? Will he instruct the executive council that these people should not be arbitrarily thrown out?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: There is no need for any fresh instructions. The executive councils have very reasonable discretion in this matter.
  Mr. Lindsay: But they are not using it. Think of the letters I have read tonight.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: In any case, the executive council can perfectly well examine individual cases. I suggest that the action they have taken in trying to secure that the area left to the doctor was a reasonable area of operation for him is a very fair one. If the executive council had taken some other basis for operation, we might well have found some patients turned off the list who would not easily find an alternative doctor. Very great care has been taken to avoid that difficulty. I am perfectly willing to say

  499
  that we are most anxious that any individual cases of special hardship shall be looked at—there is no difficulty about that—but we must try to achieve the broad aim which is, I am sure, the desire of all hon. Members and the medical profession. I am anxious that from this short discussion tonight it shall be well understood in the country that there is no desire for any arbitrary or vigorous action of the kind which has been suggested, but that we are really anxious to secure the very best possible personal service which can be provided under the National Health Scheme.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I want to add my word of congratulation to the hon. Gentleman on his translation. In his previous sphere of influence, he and I had certain differences of opinion because I charged him with being
  500
  sympathetic in appearance but unsympathetic in practice to the cases with which he dealt at the Ministry of Pensions. He accepted my challenge, and I am very happy to have the opportunity of testifying to the fact that he proved that he was right. He did a very great deal of good in that Department in humanising the administration and sympathising with the people with whom he came in contact. I beg him to adopt the same attitude at the Ministry of Health. He said that it is not the Ministry's intention to make arbitrary rules and decisions, but that is the appearance given by the present attitude of the Ministry. I urge the hon. Gentleman to pursue the part he has already adopted and prove to the patients and doctors that he is dealing with them as human personalities, and not as ciphers appearing on a card index.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

  BAGHDAD PENAL CODE
  BAGHDAD PENAL CODE
  SINGAPORE (YOUNG GIRLS)
  SINGAPORE (YOUNG GIRLS)
CYPRUS
  U.S. Personnel
  U.S. Personnel
  Jewish Camps
  Jewish Camps
MALAYA
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Batang Kali
  Batang Kali
  Rubber and Tin Industries
  Rubber and Tin Industries
  AFRICAN STUDENTS (UNITED KINGDOM)
  AFRICAN STUDENTS (UNITED KINGDOM)
  TRINIDAD (RICE GROWING)
  TRINIDAD (RICE GROWING)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TRADE SCHOOLS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TRADE SCHOOLS)
  HONG KONG (BROADCAST TALKS)
  HONG KONG (BROADCAST TALKS)
  MAURITIUS (PULSE IMPORTS)
  MAURITIUS (PULSE IMPORTS)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (COMPULSORY SERVICE)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (COMPULSORY SERVICE)
NIGERIA
  Hospital Equipment
  Hospital Equipment
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Eire Cattle (Prices)
  Eire Cattle (Prices)
  Hotel and Restaurant Meals (Prices)
  Hotel and Restaurant Meals (Prices)
  Sub-Office, Renfrew
  Sub-Office, Renfrew
  Sweets
  Sweets
  Inshore Fishermen
  Inshore Fishermen
  Thames Pier Workers
  Thames Pier Workers
  Protein Feedingstuffs
  Protein Feedingstuffs
  Kosher Meat Registrations
  Kosher Meat Registrations
ROYAL NAVY
  Volunteer Reserve (Release Dates)
  Volunteer Reserve (Release Dates)
  Dartmouth (Entries)
  Dartmouth (Entries)
  Foreshores, South Ronaldshay
  Foreshores, South Ronaldshay
  Electrical Engineering Department
  Electrical Engineering Department
  H.M.S. "Terrible" (Damage)
  H.M.S. "Terrible" (Damage)
POST OFFICE
  Wireless Licences
  Wireless Licences
  Savings Bank (Investigation)
  Savings Bank (Investigation)
  Air Mail Letters (Rawalpindi)
  Air Mail Letters (Rawalpindi)
  Air Mail Services, Hong Kong
  Air Mail Services, Hong Kong
TELEVISION
  Stations
  Stations
  Equipment (Orders)
  Equipment (Orders)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosk, Bexley
  Kiosk, Bexley
  Automatic Dials (Blind Persons)
  Automatic Dials (Blind Persons)
  Application, Sheffield
  Application, Sheffield
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Re-enlistment Applications
  Re-enlistment Applications
  High Ground (Radio Beacons)
  High Ground (Radio Beacons)
  Weekend Passes, Leconfield
  Weekend Passes, Leconfield
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions (Post Office Officers)
  Pensions (Post Office Officers)
  Clerical Officers (Promotion)
  Clerical Officers (Promotion)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Mining Timber
  Mining Timber
  Film Production Costs (Working Party)
  Film Production Costs (Working Party)
  PURCHASE TAX
  PURCHASE TAX
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (BIRMINGHAM)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (BIRMINGHAM)
  ARMY OFFICERS (RESIGNATIONS)
  ARMY OFFICERS (RESIGNATIONS)
  SWANS (PROTECTION)
  SWANS (PROTECTION)
  MEDRESCO HEARING AID
  MEDRESCO HEARING AID
  DEFENCE REGULATION 68CB (REGISTRATIONS)
  DEFENCE REGULATION 68CB (REGISTRATIONS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Viscount Allenby—Took the Oath.

THE STATUS OF NEWFOUNDLAND
2.35 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy with regard to the present constitutional status of the Dominion of Newfoundland; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will all agree that to-day democracy is being attacked violently from without and, by the Trojan horse methods, from within. These attacks become heavier and, since appetite grows with eating, their success spurs the totalitarian aggressors to even greater efforts to destroy democratic institutions. Democracy is on trial to-day as never before. Surely it is the duty of all of us who are privileged to play some part in this the Mother of Parliaments to insist in the strictest manner possible on the carrying out in full degree of established constitutional practice, and to allow no deviation from it. We should not tamper with the art and practice of democracy and then excuse such interference at a later date by saying that the results were, after all, worth while. But, my Lords, are we not doing something of that kind in relation to Newfoundland to-day? Newfoundland—her position to-day and her future to-morrow—is the subject of pronouncement and discussion in the Parliaments of Canada and Great Britain. Were she free, as I hold she should be, her Parliament would be discussing and arranging her future in accordance with normal democratic procedure.
Your Lordships, of course, will all be familiar with the history of Newfoundland's position in the Empire and Commonwealth, but perhaps you will allow me a few minutes to make a short summary as a prelude to my submission. In 1578, Humphrey Gilbert was granted
628
Letters Patent by Queen Elizabeth, permitting the planting of an English colony overseas. I read an extract—
"whose settlers and their heirs for ever should enjoy all the privileges of free citizenship of England."
By 1855, Newfoundland had obtained self-government, which she enjoyed till 1876, when she achieved full responsible government, which she enjoyed up till 1934. In January of that year, new Letters Patent were issued to assist her to meet the economic difficulties of those years. They were to:
"provide for the administration of the said Island until such time as it may become self-supporting again."
When this time arrived, as was envisaged by the Royal Commission, responsible government was to be restored. The Commission of Government was appointed, as I see it, to handle the day-to-day affairs of the Island during an extremely difficult period, but not to make away with her Sovereignty, or indeed to dispose of her future at all.
By 1941, as your Lordships are aware, Newfoundland had become self-supporting, and in 1945 a National Convention was set up. I read an extract from the document which set that up:
"To consider and discuss among themselves as elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the Island since 1934 and … to examine the position of the country and to make recommendation as to the possible forms of future government to put before the people at a national referendum."
As your Lordships may remember, this National Convention decided unanimously that only two issues should be put before the electors—namely, continuation of the present Commission of Government, or the restoration of responsible government. A motion was before the Assembly to put confederation with Canada on the referendum ballot, but this was overwhelmingly defeated, the voting being actually twenty-nine votes to sixteen votes. This decision of the elected representatives of Newfoundland was cast aside by the unilateral action of the Commission of Government, acting, no doubt, on instructions from Whitehall, which decided that the issue of Confederation with Canada should be placed on the ballot paper, despite the fact that the letters patent of 1934 made no reference at all to such a possibility,

629
nor, so far as I am aware, did the Parliamentary Delegation, of which my noble friend, Lord Ammon, who is to reply, was Chairman. Indeed, when I was last in Newfoundland, I read an interesting booklet written by my noble friend, Lord Ammon, in which he made clear reference to the fact that the idea of Confederation with Canada was very unpopular with Newfoundlanders.
As your Lordships are aware, the British North America Act expressly states that Confederation can be brought about only by Addresses from the respective Legislatures of Newfoundland and Canada. I submit that no such Address can emanate from Newfoundland until her Government has been re-established. The Statute of Westminster of 1931, which specifically recognises Newfoundland as a Dominion, lays down that:
"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless the Dominion shall have so requested and consented to the proposed enactment."
It was under such conditions therefore, very broadly outlined to your Lordships, that the referendum of June, 1948, was held, resulting in 22,000 people voting for Commission of Government, 63,000 for Confederation with Canada, and 69,000 for representative government. Then, in July, on an amended basis, a second referendum was held, resulting in 78,000 people voting for Confederation with Canada, and 71,000 for the restoration of responsible government—a majority of about 7,000. Such a figure cannot be construed as an overwhelming expression of opinion by the people of Newfoundland on an issue of such vital importance, and one in regard to which Newfoundlanders, particularly those in the outports—and those of your Lordships who have been there know how difficult it is to get round Newfoundland—had had no adequate opportunity of being fully informed by all the means available to-day for informing the people of a country, before expressing their views. The opinion is widely held in Newfoundland that the authorities did not allow a fair use of the broadcasting facilities.
My Lords, I have visited Newfoundland several times, and have worked there for a good period in years gone by acting as aeronautical adviser unpaid to that very distinguished naval officer, the then Governor, the late Admiral Sir David
630
Murray Anderson, occupying myself with the survey of the airports that were then projected. I came in contact with a large number of people all over Newfoundland. The two main airports which were decided upon are now operating and are known to all who travel by air. They are Gander and Goose. I had an opportunity of coming in contact with all sections of a very fine people—descendants from those of old English or Celtic stock. But it is sad to-day to have it borne in on one that there is a feeling widely held there that they are being sold by His Majesty's Government to Canada. Opinion is also widely held by Newfoundlanders that His Excellency the Governor and the Commission of Government have not only done all in their power, but have even exceeded their constitutional powers, in weighting the scales against them and in favour of pushing them into Confederation with Canada. My noble friend, Lord Saltoun, was to have been here to-day to take part in this debate, but he has sent a telegram to say that he is in bed with influenza and apologising for his absence. He also says:
"I heard in Newfoundland local opinion appreciative of the work of the Commission, but very critical of action of Commissioners in taking part in propaganda in favour of union to influence referendum in relation to Canada."
Just what are the advantages that will fall to Newfoundlanders, and how will their country's economic interest be secured under such an arrangement as that discussed with Canada? We hear very bold statements trade, but these, so far as I am aware, are not backed up by reasoned argument. For example, would Newfoundlanders have to shoulder a per capita debt some seven times greater than the debt they shoulder today, and then be handed out that rather hard deal that the maritimes generally receive and know so well? Perhaps the best answer to these economic questions would be that which Mr. Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, gave, when he said it was "No better than an informed guess." It is very significant that the experienced business delegate who was sent by the Commission of Government to Ottawa to negotiate the arrangements now under discussion, on seeing the terms that were being worked out, refused to be a party to signing the document and returned to St. John's.
My noble friend, Lord Ammon, who is to reply for His Majesty's Government, was, as I have already said, Chairman of an important Parliamentary Delegation in 1943. Amongst those who went with him was Sir Alan Herbert, who has certainly made himself the champion of Newfoundland in another place, and has done great work for her. But I feel sure that my noble friend and others who have been over there must very frequently receive letters from friends, not only in St. John's but in the outports, expressing their great concern at the present state of affairs. With your Lordships' permission, I will quote from a letter which is but three weeks old from a Newfoundlander who is now at Oxford, and who out of term goes home again. He writes:
"People in England have no inkling of the bitterness that has been generated against England for her handling of the situation in Newfoundland. During a visit home last summer I met people who, for example, were determined never again to stand when 'God Save the King' was being played. This would have been unthinkable a few years ago."
My Lords, I do suggest that if we had followed the regular constitutional practice established through centuries and forged in the democratic tire of experience, and had honoured our obligations, the name of England would stand in Newfoundland to-day as high as it did when Humphrey Gilbert, on August 4, 1583, raised the flag. As we read in The Elizabethan Spirit, written by that constructive Empire-conscious statesman, Leo Amery:
"On the shores of the harbour of St. John's, Newfoundland, in the presence of many English and foreign fishermen, Humphrey Gilbert solemnly hoisted the English flag and, in the Queen's name, took possession of the harbour and all territories for two hundred leagues every way. Thus was laid the foundation stone of the British Commonwealth and Empire."
I thank your Lordships sincerely for bearing with me, and I hope that those who follow will join with me with vigour in pressing His Majesty's Government to think again and to follow the course that both conscience and established democratic practice dictate, by restoring responsible government to the people of Newfoundland. The elected National Convention, to which I have already referred and which was set up in 1945, is surely already a step in the direction
632
of establishing, or I should say re-establishing, Parliament in St. John's.
Before giving way to those of your Lordships who will speak, I would like to ask my noble friend who is to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government four questions, which I feel sure he will be able to answer. First, is it considered that the referenda figures give full expression to the dictum of the late Prime Minister of Canada—that
"The people of Newfoundland indicate clearly and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding their will that Newfoundland should become a part of Canada"?
Secondly, do His Majesty's Government deny that a promise was made to Newfoundland for the restoration of responsible government when she was again self-supporting? Thirdly, do His Majesty's Government agree that Newfoundland has been self-supporting since 1941, and has made a substantial interest-free loan to Great Britain? Fourthly, do His Majesty's Government regard the Commission of Government as a democratic body representative of public opinion, and, if not, under what authority do His Majesty's Government state that the Commission of Government have the right to solicit votes for confederation with Canada at the time of the referendum, and contrary to the majority decision of the democratically elected National Convention set up in 1945? My Lords, I ask leave to move for Papers.
2.53 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, this Motion is a difficult one to discuss. That is not to say that it should not be discussed, but it is difficult to discuss it without running the risk of causing a good deal of injury in various quarters. There are three parties to this particular problem: the people of Canada, the people of Newfoundland and the people of this country. There is also a great deal of back history and there are certain elements in that back history, to which I think most of us will prefer not to refer. In fact, it is an extremely delicate subject. The noble Lord who has moved the Motion has approached the subject purely, or almost entirely, on a constitutional issue. He has, in other words, approached it on the way things have been done, rather than on what was intended should happen. I do not think those two aspects can be dissociated one

633
from the other. Though I do not intend to refer to the rather delicate subjects I have mentioned. I do not consider, unfortunately, that it is possible, to look at the present situation without having regard to and a very acute memory of the past.
May I take one particular point to which I should like to revert—that of the economic situation of Newfoundland to-day? I believe it to be quite misleading to say that because the revenues of Newfoundland from 1941 to 1947 exceeded expenditure, that necessarily means that the Dominion of Newfoundland is economically a working proposition. There are a number of factors in war which entirely vitiate the economic situation of any country. Without disrespect to any of the parties concerned, may I be allowed to mention the case of one British Crown Colony which has for many years past been, and is again, in deficit and has required grants-in-aid? I refer to British Somaliland. I could show a period when I was associated with the administration of that Colony during the war which was a time of great prosperity, a period in which there was a very large excess of revenues over expenditure. If I took the average of the period from 1940 to 1947, I could show conclusively that British Somaliland was a prosperous country with a working surplus. Everyone knows that that is not the case, and the prospects of that Crown Colony being a solvent economic proposition are to-day. I am afraid, remote.
The economic situation of Newfoundland, during the war, was affected by a number of, shall we say, non-recurring factors. Some of those factors still persist. There are, of course, American bases and American expenditure in Newfoundland, and there is the revenue, direct and indirect, derived by reason of Newfoundland being a refuelling and stopping point for trans-Atlantic aircraft. I should require a great deal more convincing than is to be obtained by reading any of the figures which I have seen that either of those two sources of revenue was likely profoundly to alter the economic situation of Newfoundland in the long run.
Broadly speaking, there are only two main assets on which the Dominion has had to depend in the past and on which
634
it would have to depend in the future if it were to remain an independent self-governing Dominion They are timber, with some possible mineral development, and fish. It will be well known to your Lordships that the fisheries have depended largely on the sale of dried cod, which is a diminishing, factor in Newfoundland commerce. In fact, though some people have a taste for dried cod—people in South America and certain Mediterranean countries for instance—I cannot help feeling that there are preferable methods of preserving the fish which would make it more appetising and do a great deal more to popularise it than bacalhao, much as I like it. These are the sort of factors which I do not think justify anyone saying that because Newfoundland revenues exceeded expenditure from 1941 to 1947, Newfoundland has achieved the possibility of economic existence.
I am afraid that I remain of the opinion which I have always held, that Newfoundland as an economic proposition is not viable in the long run as an independent unit any more than any of the maritime provinces of Canada would be had they remained independent. Is it conceivable that even Nova Scotia, let alone Prince Edward Island, might become and remain an independent and self-supporting economic entity? It does not even bear thinking about, and I am afraid that the case for Newfoundland is somewhat similar. To argue from that basis fairly, one must go back not only to 1934 but to the years antecedent to 1934 and one must bear in mind the circumstances which caused the economic situation that led to the Commission of Government. If those factors are taken into account, we are all, in one form or another, faced with trying to find a solution—we in this country, the people of Newfoundland, and the people of their great neighbour, the Dominion of Canada. A solution that has been proposed (I will come in a minute to the method being adopted to achieve it) is for Newfoundland to enter the Dominion as the founders of the Federation had originally conceived. That, I submit to your Lordships, is the right answer and the only answer which is practical from everybody's point of view.
Of the many arguments that have been advanced, and upon which the noble Lord who moved this Motion has touched, a great deal of play—in my view, too much

635
—has been made of the financial issue, so far as Newfoundland is concerned. We have been told that entry into the Dominion will involve Newfoundland in a higher rate of income tax and also, possibly, in disadvantages in import restrictions. The bulk of people in Newfoundland for whom we should have most thought and care are the vast majority who pay no income tax; they are the people who suffered most during the miserable years that preceded 1934, for which I am afraid we in this country must take a great responsibility. Let us face the fact that in a large part it was the trading methods of those who traded with Newfoundland which reduced a large part of her population to the state of poverty and abjectness described in the First Commission's Report, when the Commission of Government was appointed. And since we in this country were mainly responsible for that, we are now responsible for finding a solution to this problem, which has not yet been solved.
We have had, and to some extent still have, in Newfoundland, if I am rightly informed, a situation resembling the worst usages which led to the Truck Acts in this country, though the situation is better than it was fourteen years ago. Would it not be to condemn those people to an infinite period of that sort of life to suggest that they should go back to a precarious economic existence as an independent and self-governing Dominion? I hope your Lordships will agree with me that that short summary is not an unfair statement of the position. I think many of your Lordships will believe that the present solution will be the happiest one for the largest number of people in Newfoundland to-day.
There was one term used by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, which I am sure he did not mean quite as it was used, and which I would like to take up, lest there should be any misunderstanding in Canada about words used in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord spoke of our being held responsible for having "sold" Newfoundland to Canada. I am sure the noble Lord did not mean that in so many words. I would not like anybody either in Newfoundland or Canada to feel that that was ever our intention or that there is any justification for using these words—if for no other reason than
636
that a sale involves a consideration. Of course no one in this country could have contemplated such a transaction; nor could anybody in Canada be accused of having bought anything or wishing to buy anything. Let us consider for a moment what this proposed entry of Newfoundland into the Dominion of Canada means to the people of Canada. There is no advantage to them, so far as I can see from the figures which I was privileged to see in Canada last autumn. Indeed, it involves a burden of considerable magnitude on the remainder of Canada for many years to come.
The figures of what are called the transitional grants are quoted in Command Paper 7605, on page 11. They amount to tens of millions of dollars at a time when, as we all know, Canada is suffering economically from very considerable stringencies. I cannot believe, I will not believe, the suggestion that the Canadians are doing this in order to get something out of Newfoundland. The figures themselves give the lie to any such accusation. The figures show that Canada will be contributing something to Newfoundland for a very long period. If the Canadians contribute some 50,000,000 dollars to Newfoundland, it seems to me that the people of Newfoundland must have the advantage. It is they who have the advantage, and not our very good friends in Canada, who have made a settlement which I am satisfied in my own mind is a very generous one, and which can only benefit the people of Newfoundland. Nor could it be said that in doing this, the Canadians have relieved this country, because for the last few years, as the noble Lord said, Newfoundland has had a surplus of revenue and we have not had to contribute. In other words, the sole benefit of this very munificent settlement (as I regard it) is to the advantage of Newfoundland and to no one else.
Let me deal with another point of which a great deal of play has been made. It has been suggested, as I believe, most improperly and somewhat offensively, that the people of Canada have sought this amalgamation, this entry into the Confederation, in order to secure the iron ore deposits in Labrador. In the first place, that it not true, for the very simple reason that a large part, though not the whole, of the so-called Labrador iron ore deposits are in the Province of Quebec and not in Labrador at all. Actually, the

637
geological formation runs over the whole of that area of ground through which the boundary between Quebec and Labrador runs as it was delimited under the decision of the Privy Council. I happen to have seen a number of people associated with the development of that Province, and I have heard the opinions of Canadians from the Province of Quebec and elsewhere. I believe there is no quarrel on that issue, and indeed there could not be a quarrel when the major part of that which is to be worked in the immediate future lies, as is admitted on both sides, in the Province of Quebec. There cannot be a question of Canada getting something she has not had before: she has it already.
The last point in that order with which I want to deal—and this I am afraid is a matter of opinion; many of your Lordships will not agree with me, though others perhaps will—is about the referenda. I am not talking about whether a referendum was constitutionally right or wrong, but about the results. One can always argue, as we know only too well in this country, upon what votes really mean. There is no doubt that if a poll had been taken of the population of the United Kingdom, not divided into constituencies, the supporters of His Majesty's present Government would not be in office, as they are a minority—I think about 47 per cent. of the electorate voted for, and 53 per cent. against them. They happen, however, to have a very large majority in another place.
Anybody could argue that the figures of the second Newfoundland referendum, which showed a majority in favour of entry into the Dominion might, if that poll had been taken by constituencies, have shown a vastly bigger majority in favour of entry into Canada. I do not know whether it would; but the noble Lord opposite says it would. It may be that it would, and it may be that it would not; one cannot argue on hypothetical calculations, but it is a possibility. It is not legitimate, therefore, to say that because the majority was not so large as some people thought it ought to be it did not express the views of the people as a whole, or that those views, had they been expressed in another way, might have been different—or, indeed, that they might have reinforced the particular result. So much for some of the argu-
638
ments against the citify of Newfoundland into Canada, and for the re-making of the Newfoundland Government and Newfoundland's maintenance as a self-governing Dominion.
I now come to the most important part of what the noble Lord who opened the debate has said—namely, the method. With the very small knowledge I have of constitutional matters and procedure I would not dream of going into the reasons for the adoption of the particular methods which were adopted. But I must admit—and I know I share this view with a great many people, including many of your Lordships—that I have an uncomfortable feeling that the way it has been done has not been happy. I think we are all a little uncomfortable. One might have hoped that greater thought would be given to the way in which such a big change in people's lives and their government was effected, and that a different conclusion might have been reached. I can see that it would have been perfectly fair to restore an Independent Government, and proceed by way of an Election or a referendum after that. As it is, however, I am unhappy about the way it has been done. In a book called Murder in the Cathedral, which many of your Lordships have no doubt read, the Bishop Thomas is tempted by the classical tempters, and finally by the fourth tempter who holds before him the possibility of the Crown of Martyrdom. The Bishop is for a time tempted, and then in his prayer he prays:
"Save me from the greatest treason
Of doing the right thing for the wrong reason."
3.16 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has adequately answered the case that has been put by the noble Lord who opened this debate, and I might well have left the matter there. However, Ism hoping that in a few words I may be able to show your Lordships that, far from any injustice being done to Newfoundland, she has been treated with the utmost generosity; and, further, that all the fundamental laws of democracy have been observed. I think I may remove even the little unhappiness felt by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I suppose there is not one of us but who feels a sentimental twinge at the parting, shall I say, of this our oldest Dominion. New-

639
foundland represented practically the first stone of the Empire. Ever since then her people have had a troubled and chequered career. They have never been able to develop their resources, not even from the time when John Cabot first landed there in 1497, which was some eighty-six years before Sir Humphrey Gilbert went in and took possession in the name of Queen Elizabeth. Then they had trouble with the Star Chamber, who wanted to make Newfoundland solely a fishing station and to prevent every means of developing which they could. Out of that, it is just as well to remember, flowed the present spread of population and conditions as we have them now—a small community scattered round 6,000 miles of coast, which has made it impossible to develop social services, or local government, or by any means to achieve national progress or a national programme. That point must be remembered when we are considering the problems put before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, asked me a question (I will try to deal with the other questions, but I particularly want to deal with this one) whether it is not a fact that since 1941 Newfoundland has been more or less on a sound economic footing. That is very much on the lines of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" because since 1941 Newfoundland has taken advantage of the conditions that flowed naturally out of a state of war. Until 1933, when the Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, went out there, they were in debt to no less an extent than 101,000,000 dollars—and that on a population of 280,000 (one need not dwell very much on that point)—and they had little or no trade outside. It is as well to remember that the Commission of Government went out there, not as a Commission imposed upon the Dominion from this side but at the request of Newfoundland. The then Government of Newfoundland asked that we should step in and take control of affairs. It was only then, when Newfound-was put into the hands of the Commission of Government, and something like order and proper conditions of administration came into effect, that some degree of stability was obtained.
From that point perhaps it would be just as well if I endeavoured to show your Lordships' House exactly how the present condition from a constitutional
640
point of view arose. I do not stray further than the constitutional position, because in accordance with the gracious Speech from the Throne there will come up in another place, and subsequently here, a Bill dealing with the British North America position in which the wider question will be debated. For the moment, I am concerned with trying to demonstrate that everything has been done to follow along constitutional lines in order that justice might be done to Newfoundland. This question was raised by myself, if my memory serves me rightly, on May 3, 1944. in this House—in fact, it was my maiden speech. In the course of that debate the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, Lord Salisbury, who was then the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, made an authoritative statement of the policy which was being pursued by His Majesty's Government then and which has been continued since.
Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I quote the germane extracts from that speech. The noble Marquess said:
"As soon as practicable after the end of the war, that is, the war in Europe, machinery must be provided for enabling the Newfoundland people to examine the future of the island and to express their considered views as to the form of government they desire, having regard to the financial and economic conditions prevailing at the time. In the meantime the Secretary of State will take soundings in order to ascertain what kind of machinery would be acceptable to the Newfoundland people. If the general wish of the people should be for a return to full responsible government, we for our part shall he very ready, if the island is then self-supporting, to facilitate such a change. If, however, the general wish should be either for the continuance of the present form of government or for some change of system which would fall short of full responsible government, we shall be prepared to examine such proposals sympathetically and consider within what limits the continued acceptance of responsibility by the United Kingdom could be recommended to Parliament."
Subsequently, my noble friend who now leads the House, and who was then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, announced to your Lordships on December 11, 1945, that, in pursuance of the statement of policy to which I have referred, His Majesty's Government had decided to set up in Newfoundland an elected National Convention of Newfoundlanders, whose terms of reference would be as follows:
"To consider and discuss among themselves, as elected representatives of the Newfoundland

641
people, the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the Island since 1934 and, bearing in mind the extent to which the high revenues of recent years have been due to war-time conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national referendum."
Elections to the Convention took place in the summer of 1946, and the forty-five members met in St. John's in September of that year. In May of the following year the Convention sent a delegation to the United Kingdom to inquire what relations could be expected between His Majesty's Government and the Newfoundland Government under various forms of Constitution. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House made a statement on May 13, 1947, as to the outcome of the discussions which he had with this delegation.
The National Convention subsequently elected another delegation to visit Canada and to discuss with Canadian Ministers and officials the questions which would arise in the event of Newfoundland deciding to join the Canadian Confederation. Following these talks, the Canadian Government sent to the Governor of Newfoundland, for communication to the Convention, the terms on which they considered that confederation could be carried through. In due course, the National Convention made recommendations to His Majesty's Government. The Convention proposed two alternatives on which the people might be advised to vote—namely, the restoration of responsible government as it existed prior to 1934 (and it is important to remember that the restoration of the Government prior to 1934 was the Government that had been superseded by the Commission)—or the retention of the Commission form of government. A considerable minority of the Convention voted that the issue of confederation with Canada should be added to the ballot paper. His Majesty's Government, bearing in mind that strong minority view, felt that it was desirable that the people should be given the opportunity of voting on the issue of confederation with Canada. They therefore decided that this third choice should be included on the ballot paper. Arrangements were thereupon made for the hold-
642
ing of a referendum, at which the three issues to which I have referred would be put before the people. The first referendum, which took place on June 3, 1948, gave the following result: For Commission of Government 22,311 votes; for confederation with Canada 64,066 votes; and for the restoration of responsible government 69,400 votes.
As no one form of government received an absolute majority over the other two combined, a further referendum was held on July 22. This referendum resulted in 78,323 votes for confederation with Canada, and 71,334 votes for the restoration of responsible government. I might intervene here to say that, after all, the result was actually more decisive than the figures themselves show, because no less than 85 per cent. of the whole electorate voted, and of that 85 per cent., 52 per cent. voted for confederation. Out of the twenty-five electoral districts, eighteen recorded their votes in favour of confederation—I think that might relieve somewhat the feelings of the noble Lord—and seven districts noted for responsible government.
Let me make the position clear with regard to what the male Lord who opened the debate said about the people in the outports not having an opportunity to record their votes. As a matter of fact, it was the outports who decided this vote. It was the towns who largely voted for the restoration of responsible government, but it was the outports, who were, as I found when. I was there, dominated in St. John's and had little or no say in the affairs, who determined the result of that particular election. I think that should be borne in mind, and that one should not dwell too much on the actual figures, because the whole population is Dilly 280,000, and when you add up the numbers who voted and take from the remainder at least 65,000 schoolchildren, you have not a very large number of people who might have recorded their votes.
The Canadian Government at once considered the results of the second referendum. On July 30, 1948, the Prime Minister of Canada announced that as the result of the plebiscite in favour of union between the two countries was—I quote his words—"clear and beyond possibility of misunderstanding," the Canadian Government would be gl id to receive authorised representatives of Newfound-

643
land to negotiate the terms of union. Mr. Mackenzie King added an assurance that in those negotiations any special problems which might arise in connection with the entry of Newfoundland into confederation would receive most careful consideration before any final action was taken. His Majesty's Government issued a Statement on the same day saying that they, for their part, as the Government responsible for the administration of Newfoundland, were in agreement with the views expressed by Mr. Mackenzie King.
Representatives of Newfoundland were thereupon appointed to proceed to Ottawa to negotiate the final terms of union. Following full and friendly discussions, the terms were signed by the Canadian and Newfoundland representatives on December 11 last. A White Paper—which is on the Table—has been published and is now before your Lordships, giving the full text of those terms. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has pointed out, those terms are very generous indeed. Let us see what they amount to. For a period of twelve years transitional grants are going to be made to Newfoundland. In the first three years they amount to no less than 6,500,000 dollars per year, gradually scaling down until in the twelfth year the figure will be 350,000 dollars. So, far from having been "sold," it looks as if Newfoundland has made a very good bargain and come out of the business very well indeed.
As your Lordships will remember, it was stated in the gracious Speech from the Throne at the opening of the present Session that legislation would be laid before Parliament to give effect to whatever decisions might result from the negotiations for admitting Newfoundland to the Canadian Confederation. His Majesty's Government in Canada are shortly expected to ask the Canadian Parliament to submit an Address requesting that an Act should be passed by Parliament at Westminster confirming the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. These terms and the Bill which will be presented to your Lordships' House are the outcome of the policy to which I have referred and of the decisions freely arrived at by a majority of the people of Newfoundland in the referendum of July, 1948.
644
That, my Lords, is the actual statement of policy. It remains for me now only to answer such as I have not already answered of the direct questions that were put to me. The noble Lord asked me about the referendum figures. I have no hesitation in saying that an analysis of the figures shows that they represent the truth as clearly as they possibly could, and that everything was done under proper democratic conditions. The noble Lord also made reference to the matter of responsible Government. What has to be borne in mind is that the question which was put to the Newfoundlanders was whether they wished to go back to responsible government as it was before 1934. Their answer was most emphatic that they do not want to go back. And that was what one felt everywhere one went. The late Viscount Bennett, who knew something about this problem and with whom we discussed the matter when we had the debate of 1944, said, in the course of the debate:
"The fact is the Report of a Commission indicated that all the money that was borrowed did not find its last lodging place in the development of the country!"
That to a great extent led up to the position of affairs which has resulted so disastrously in recent times. The other matter I have already referred to, and that is the possibility since 1941 of a purely artificial prosperity resulting from war conditions. I might mention, in passing, that, since the war, Newfoundland from the strategic point of view has taken a much more prominent and important position than before.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, referred to the question of finance. It is just as well to remember that, under the form of government existing hitherto, the mass of the people have lived under conditions of something like poverty, with little or no social services. By reason of the fact that the population is spread out as it is, there is no local government whatsoever. One of the things that one tried to inculcate, when one went there, was a sense of the importance of local government. But matters are made much more difficult because means of communication are so slender. In the winter time there is no road across the Island, and, except for one local railway, there is hardly any means of transport. Moreover, their

645
form of taxation bears of necessity very hardly on the poorest members of the community. In the pamphlet to which the noble Lord referred, and for which I was responsible, I said this:
"Under the present system, approximately 75 pet cent. of the revenue is derived from customs duties, 7½ per cent, from income and 2½ per cent. from liquor profits, thus being largely indirect and condemned by all in Newfoundland except a few rich merchants who consider that they are already sufficiently sacrificed to direct taxation. In the words of the Amulree Commission, 'The tariff is not the outcome of a scientifically considered policy.' One obvious and serious result is that the heaviest burden necessarily falls on the poor. Price control is also necessary. At present the merchant not only passes on to the consumer the import tax, but adds about 30 per cent. as his profit on the whole. The Amulree Commission remark that if prices were high, that was attributed to the machinations of the merchant or shopkeeper. The effect of the high tariff was not appreciated. Freedom from any requirement to make a direct contribution to the expenses of administration produce an indifference to waste and extravagance."
Another point to which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, made reference was that the fishermen are never out of debt. They are supplied by merchants or financiers with their fishing gear and they are never able to pay off the debt. As they bring in the result of their catch, it is taken by the merchant or financier. That is one of the things that led to the decision of the Commission.
Here we have an Island that has been for about five hundred years attached to the British Empire, and somehow it has never been able to get quite free to develop and grow in the manner it ought to do. I suppose a finer body of people cannot be found anywhere than the Newfoundlanders. They are more British than the British, because there is hardly any other mixture of blood in the population; and perhaps one of the reasons for that is that there is no means of making money except by hard work! That may account for it in some degree. I found a feeling that there undoubtedly could be further development, and that the country could carry a larger population. I believe it can be done, with the co-operation and help of our Canadian friends, who are entering into this matter in a true and right spirit, not with any hope that they are going to make anything out of it themselves, but that if there is anything valuable there they may give the country a full oppor-
646
tunity to develop it in a way that has never yet been done. By that means, not only will Newfoundland be benefiting herself, so far as most of the people are concerned, but I believe that the Empire as a whole will be strengthened.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is not an easy debate in which to take part. Deputising as I am for the noble Marquess, I very much wish that he were here to-day. It is right that I should say a word or two however, and I am sure your Lordships will expect me to do so. Of course, in any debate on this subject, we are in fact discussing what is virtually a fat accompli. When the Bill to establish the new Constitution of Newfoundland comes before us, we shall have the opportunity and the duty of considering that in great detail, and I think it right that we should confine ourselves to-day within a narrow compass on what is an important issue.
On reflection, I think that the noble Lord who moved this Motion will feel that he overstated his case, certainly in some particulars. I refer not so much to his legal arguments, with which I do not think I am qualified to deal, but to what I may call his political arguments. He said that in the action which had been taken we were tampering with democracy. Whether or not we have acted wisely in the way in which this has been done, certainly I think the last charge that could be brought against His Majesty's Government, or against either House of Parliament—because we are all involved in this—is that we have been tampering with democracy. After all, what does democracy mean? If it means anything, it means that the freely-expressed will of a people of a country should prevail. Moreover, I am sure that His Majesty's Government in this country, and His Majesty's Government in Canada, had only one intention, one desire—namely, that in the most effective way possible the people of Newfoundland should be consulted as to what they wished their future to be and should express that view.
I feel that that ought to be said, because we all have a responsibility in this matter. I do not think that anything should go out indicating that there was the faintest intention anywhere, in any Government or in any Parliament, other

647
than that of giving Newfoundland that democratic chance. I think it is also fair to say that no one in either House challenged the announcement made on March 15, 1948, when the despatch to the Governor was published, of the form that the referendum would take and how it would be conducted, although we did understand that there would be three stages in this course. If the noble Viscount the Leader of the House casts his mind back, he will remember that, after he had made his statement, the Leader of the Opposition said (I paraphrase it): "I take it then that there will be three stages in this matter: A convention will sit. The convention will draw up its conclusions and forward them to His Majesty's Government; and then a plebiscite will be taken." The reference to that is Hansard of December 11, 1945, columns 544 and 545. Lord Cranborne (as he then was) stated:
"… I take it that His Majesty's Government … have no intention of precluding the people of Newfoundland from voting on the alternatives which the Convention may recommend."
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, then said:
"I welcome the noble Lord's supplementary question. His Majesty's Government have no such intention. They hope that the Convention will be able to frame their recommendations in the form of questions to be submitted to the people of Newfoundland at the referendum."
I am bound to say that we who sit in either House must all agree that not only was a plebiscite foreseen but it was expressly provided for in the action which was taken.
I would go further and say that, assuming constitutional government in the old form had been re-established in Newfoundland, any Government would, I believe, have been morally bound to submit as an issue to the people of Newfoundland what they wished their future to be. Supposing that without any question we had restored constitutional government to Newfoundland, the same issues would have been there. The constitutional process followed would not have altered the economic or the physical facts of the situation, and any Newfoundland Government would have been morally bound to submit to the people of Newfoundland what their future should be. I am not in favour of a referendum is a normal process, for I think it is a
648
bad normal process. I believe that to refer every sort and kind of matter on a referendum destroys Government responsibility, in the sense that a Government should take responsibility.
But it is an entirely different question when the whole future of a country has to be decided and when, as in this case, a perfectly simple issue can be put in a way which everybody must understand, in which everybody has an interest and upon which everybody, therefore, can give a direct vote. I do not think you ever get a vote of that kind at an Election. Even where there is the "hottest" issue at an Election, nobody will say that it is entirely decided on that issue. On this referendum, however, though the majority was not a large one, I do not think anybody would suggest other than that every single person who cast his vote in Newfoundland knew what he was voting for. Therefore, I believe the only practical way in which the decision could be taken by the people of Newfoundland was on a plebiscite. In the circumstances of the case, surely, a direct plebiscite was the practical and democratic way of giving the people of Newfoundland their opportunity?
I think that this House really accepted that—indeed, that both Houses did, as far back as December, 1945. But I do not think we anticipated there would be so much hurry; we anticipated rather closer consultation. On this I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. While, in my opinion, the taking of a plebiscite was undoubtedly necessary, and while I have no doubt that the result would have been the same—though it may be that the voting would have been stronger than it was—a closer consultation and adherence to what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, called "the three stages" would, I feel, have been wise, and would probably have resulted in the people of Newfoundland feeling that they had been more closely consulted in the matter, or at any rate that they had had more time to make their representations.
But, my Lords, that is a criticism of the method it is not a criticism of the result. If I may say so (though it is entirely a matter for the people of Newfoundland to decide) I cannot resist the feeling that they have taken a wise decision. Behind them now, for they will not enter Canada in some inferior

649
status, but will presumably have the full status of a province of that great Dominion, they will have the whole financial and economic strength of the Dominion of Canada. Having read the terms which were negotiated between the representatives of Newfoundland and the Canadian Government, I consider that the terms are generous and certainly, if I were looking upon it as an economic question, I would have no doubt as to where the balance of interest in this matter lies.
I take it that we shall have in the Bill which will have to be introduced in this country a clause setting out what is to be the future Constitution of Newfoundland as a province, and we shall then see exactly what rights are to be given. When the noble Lord who moved this Motion reflects upon that, and casts his mind on to how wide are the powers in all local government matters in a province of the Dominion of Canada, I think, he will not consider that Newfoundland, by the step which she is taking, is surrendering her freedom; but rather that in the greater entity of the Dominion of Canada she is maintaining her freedom and ensuring her prosperity. My Lords, I thought it right to say as much as I have. I think the only conclusion of this House in the circumstances in which we find ourselves (I hope it will be unanimous) will be that this decision having been taken by the people of Newfoundland, we wish them God-speed.
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, by strange ill-fortune the Leader of the House, who ought to be replying to this discussion because he gave a great deal of time and thought to it as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, is prevented from so doing by reason of the fact that he has a bad throat. I am in the unhappy position, therefore, of having to try to do what he would have done, whilst he listens. But he has always been benign to me, and I have no doubt he will be to-day! Had the noble Viscount been replying, however, I think he would have felt, after the speeches we have heard in this debate, that there is little that need be said. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, so well informed as it was, so enriched by his personal knowledge of the subject, has,
650
I think, left me little to answer, and I shall therefore occupy only a very short space of your Lordships' time.
So far as the legal issue is concerned, it is, of course, the fact that our Parliament is a sovereign Parliament, and one cannot place any restriction upon what our Parliament may do. It has been said that Parliament may do everything except turn a man into a woman. If Parliament enacted that, the courts would have to proceed on the assumption that the change had been made. Therefore legally there is no doubt that our Parliament is competent to do what it desires. But a difficulty arises. Your Lordships will remember that the Newfoundland Act of 1933 provided for the suspension, for a temporary period, of the existing government and contemplated that on request we should restore that government. There obviously is a lacuna, because it was never provided how the request was to be made. It was laid down that the government should not be restored until a request was made, and there was no provision as to how the request could be made or who could make it. That was the difficulty. As to whether Newfoundland is or is not self-supporting, I will not attempt to add to the observations that have been made, nor to detract from them. But this, at least, is quite plain: that there never has been a request for the restoration of responsible government. Such a request could have been made on two occasions, but it was not made.
That being so, we cannot follow the Act of 1933, which sets out in the Annexe the following extract from the Royal Commission:
"It would be understood that as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, responsible government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored."
There were two conditions for the restoration of responsible government. One was that the Island's difficulties would be overcome, and the second was that a request had been made, and a request has never been made. There being that lacuna, it is obvious, is it not, if one tries to follow democratic processes, that the best form of request one can get is a request from the people by means of a plebiscite. What better authority for a request can one have? So the matter was

651
referred to the people in the plebiscite, and again the people have not by a majority requested the restoration of responsible government. On the contrary, in the second plebiscite which was taken, the people requested by a substantial majority—more substantial still if one considers the electoral district divisions in which the vote was taken—that there should be union with Canada. Consequently, negotiations have take place and provisional terms have been drawn up.
I agree with Lord Rennell that this is rather a delicate subject at the present time, because I believe that at this very moment of time the Canadian Parliament are debating the matter—at any rate, if they are not actually doing so now they will be in a few days' time. But the Agreement has been drawn up and it contains this clause:
"These terms are agreed to subject to their being approved by the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland; shall take effect notwithstanding the Newfoundland Act. 1933, or any instrument issued pursuant thereto; and shall come into force immediately before the expiration of the thirty-first day of March. 1949, if His Majesty has theretofore given His Assent to an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland confirming the same."
Consequently, before March 31 proposals will be made to confirm the terms of this Agreement and, of course it will be open to your Lordships, if you are so minded, to discuss and debate the terms.
The terms provide for the future constitution of Newfoundland as a province of Canada. They set out in full the details of the Constitution. They provide how many members Newfoundland is to return to the Canadian Senate and to the Canadian House of Commons. Indeed, they deal with all aspects of the matter. I must say, though I do not pose as an expert in this matter at all, that it seems to me that the proposals Canada is making are by no means ungenerous. It certainly is a fact that for many years to come this will entail a heavy burden on the people of Canada. Therefore, any suggestion to the effect that we have "sold" Newfoundland, or anything of that sort, is quite beside the point. We, in this country, have not sought to take and have not in fact taken a penny piece out of it, and Canada, for her part, is also paying, a very heavy price for the
652
chance of getting Newfoundland going again.
I have never been to Newfoundland, and I have never seen it, but I have read many papers about it. I am not going to impute blame to one Party or to any one group of people, but I do think that we all shamefully neglected our duties there. The fact that there is not a road, or hardly a road, on the Island, the fact that there is practically no education and the fact that such things as a drainage system are really non-existent, seem to indicate that it is a great pity that in the old days, when we had rather more money than we have to-day, we did not spend some of it on the development of that island. But we did not do so, and there were, as we all know, unhappy incidents with regard to the Island, on which none of us need now dwell. What we have to consider is what can best be done in the interests of the people of the Island. In this connection I would like to say that all those people with whom I have discussed the matter believe that this is the best proposal.
The people of Canada, subject to what their Parliament says in the next few days, appear to be willing to take on this onerous responsibility. They will try to give the people of Newfoundland some of the benefits which the various provinces of Canada now enjoy. And to be a province of Canada is to be well within the bounds of democracy and democratic Government. I therefore submit to your Lordships that the course which we are taking is the right one, and I venture to hope that the opportunity which is now given may not be lost. However that may be, obviously in the course of a few days—certainly in a few weeks—your Lordships will have before you a Bill (that is, presuming the proposal goes through the Canadian Parliament) confirming the Agreement which has been come to, on which your Lordships, if so minded, can make what pronouncement you like.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission, correct a slight misstatement which I made during the course of my speech. I said that, speaking from my experience when there, there was no direct taxation on the island. I am informed that now 60 per cent. of the revenue comes from direct taxation. There is also in operation

653
some system of local government. I apologise to the House, and, as your Lordships will note, I have taken the first opportunity open to me to correct my mistake.
4.7 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for his intervention in the debate. I have taken careful note of what he said. I thank also my noble friend, Lord Ammon, for his long speech. When my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned that Lord Ammon would like to speak again, I thought that perhaps Lord Ammon was having second thoughts, and I hoped that he was going to give way to my suggestion. I learn now that I was wrong. I thank your Lordships who have spoken in this debate. I cannot say that, personally, I am at all satisfied with the replies—it would not be right if I said I was. I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion and, in doing so, I would like to say that I propose at the earliest possible moment to introduce a Bill to be entitled "The Newfoundland Liberation Bill," and I will take the normal steps to that end. I thank your Lordships.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POSITION OF SMALL TRADERS
4.8 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD rose to call attention to the position of the small trader in this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, if my Motion refers specifically to the small trader, it is because I feel that in these days of mass organisation the interests of the small man in this country are tending increasingly to be overlooked but in that the majority of small traders are to be found in the field of distribution, and particularly in that of retail distribution, I realise that my Motion does, in fact, cover a very large subject. Indeed, it may be said to cover the sale of practically every article from a Rolls Royce car to a Rolls razor, and to deal with every kind of business, from a department store to a barrow boy.
With so large and complex a subject, I feel that any detailed approach is impossible for me in the time at my disposal
654
this afternoon. Nor, in any case, am I qualified to speak on the intricacies of the main industries and businesses involved. My approach is entirely that of the consumer, for I am myself a consumer, and, clearly, my main concern is for the retailer, partly because most of the small men happen to be in the retail side of the business, but also because the retailer is the man with whom I chiefly deal. Upon his courtesy and upon his efficiency depend most of my daisy needs, and a good deal of my comfort and convenience. Therefore, I was rather surprised some months ago to note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question in another place, said that the independent trader represented no one but himself.
Obviously, the independent trader represents his own interests, but if he gives good service and a variety of choice to the consumer, surely he represents the consumer's interests as well. Indeed, if I may say so this remark of the Chancellor was just another example of the attitude of mind which is unfortunately too common in the ranks of the Party opposite. I refer to that apparent inability to understand that the man who is independent, who is not organised in some union or other, can still be a valuable member of the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the independent trader represents no one. It would be more true to say that there is nobody in the Socialist Party who represents the independent trader.
It is this fact and this mental attitude which I believe are responsible for the Government's neglect of the interests of the private trader over the last three and half years. Since 1945, all enterprise in this country has been handicapped by excessive interference on the part of the Government. Nobody, however, has suffered more than the small man, partly because of his more limited capital resources, which make a quick turnover vital to him and the increased costs difficult to absorb; and even more, I think, because he is the ultimate link with the consumer. It is upon him, more than upon others further up the line of distribution, that the burden of Government control has fallen most heavily. He it is upon whom the snoopers snoop, and if they snoop successfully he may be con-

655
victed of an offence. If he is convicted, the penalties that face him are serious.
I should like to quote to your Lordships, if I may, the remarks of Mr. Justice Hallett at a recent Assize in Norfolk. He said to the prisoner:
"Parliament has given power to the Minister to put out of business anyone to whom he takes a dislike. Unfortunately, you are one of those people. You have been put in a very difficult position. Because you have got a simile black mark, the Minister has now deprived you of making the livelihood you previously earned. It has nothing to do with me. The Court can exercise no control over the actions of Ministers."
That is the sort of penalties with which the trader is faced. Usually it is he, more than anybody else, who is most completely submerged beneath the sea of forms which nowadays seem to encumber the simplest transaction. The first problem that confronts him is the control of the retail and wholesale prices of nearly every commodity to-day. As the result of this, he is faced with a fixed margin of potential profit, from which his costs have to be found. And these, like everything else, are continually rising.
Wages have more than doubled since before the war. Rates also have gone up, and in this connection it is interesting to note that the 1929 Derating Act, which relieved industry of 75 per cent. of its rates, did not include the shopkeeper. The cost of repairs and maintenance, again, have increased enormously and there is the cost of the controls themselves. A reputable trade paper states that clothes rationing has accounted for 5½ per cent. of the work of the whole of the staff engaged in the retail clothing and textile trades. This represents the work of no fewer than 20,000 people. Again, owing to nationalisation, the small trader has had to pay more for his coal, gas, electricity and his freights, not to mention the heavy loss which these industries have incurred and which are reflected in the crippling and unpleasant tax demands which he, like all of us, from time to time receives, and which make it difficult for him to plough back any profits or build up reserves.
If it were a question merely of running costs rising steadily, as they have risen, I would not say that existing profit margins are necessarily unreasonable. It is true that some of them date back as
656
far as 1939, and are obviously outmoded. But even so, there are marry which would not be unreasonable if it were a question of running costs alone. But one of the greatest handicaps which the small man has to face to-day is the greatly increased capital expenditure and risk of capital loss. The cost of replacement of stock has risen at least three times what it was before the war and, of course, requires a great deal more finance. This difficulty is aggravated in its turn by purchase tax, whereby the small man becomes an unpaid tax collector for the Government. He pays tax when he buys goods, and he recovers the tax if and when he sells goods. In the interval he is forced to loan the Government, free of interest, the amount of the tax. It is estimated that at the present time some £60,000,000 is being carried by the retail trade in purchase tax.
What is the result of this? The small trader has two alternatives: either to reduce his stocks, and thus reduce his turnover and profits, or go to a bank and ask them to finance his purchase tax. Whichever he does, he is worse off. And if his goods do not sell quickly, or if in the meantime purchase tax is reduced, he is faced with a capital loss. This is a bad tax. It is had for the trader himself, and bad for the consumer, because it encourages the trader to carry smaller stocks and to concentrate on utility lines which do not carry purchase tax. It is also bad for the export trade because it discourages manufacturers of new types of goods, which by their very novelty are risky and which wholesalers and retailers are not prepared to handle. The effect of high prices, high taxation and purchase tax has enormously increased the capital resources which are necessary for the small trader if he is to carry on. No allowance is made by the Inland Revenue for these greatly increased costs. Where is the small trader to find the additional capital? There are only two ways: either to go once more to the bank and borrow, which is not a healthy state of affairs, or to find it out of his profits margin. If he finds it that way, there is little profit left to the trader.
I turn now from increased costs to increased competition. The small trader to-day has to face greatly increased competition. On these Benches we have no objection to free competition—that

657
particular phobia is reserved for the Government's nationalised industries. But we have a predilection for fair competition, and I think that is more than can be said for some of the competition which the small man has to face to-day. In the first place, there are the co-operative societies, which have been his competitors for many years and have enjoyed for many years certain advantages in taxation. Some people citicise the tax immunity of the "divi." I do not quarrel so much with this as with the fact that the profit from trading with non-members may be included in the gross profits from which the "divi." is declared. As a result, it is possible to pay a larger "divi.," and some of these profits escape the taxation which they should properly pay.
This is not the only advantage enjoyed by the co-operative societies. In general, of course, they enjoy the benefit of intimate relations with the Socialist Party, both personal and, I believe, financial. In particular, they happen to enjoy the special favour of the Minister of Food, if the Christmas allocation of poultry, rabbits and sugar is any guide. More important still, they appear, if The Times is correct, to enjoy, with the T.U.C., the special confidence of the Government, when it comes to the question of framing the future policy of the Government. I understand, again from The Times, that these discussions have been going on for some time and have not been entirely harmonious. This lack of harmony seems to be most regrettable; but even more regrettable is the fact that discussions of such importance on the future of distribution should have been held without the participation of the private trader.
I turn from the co-operative societies to municipal trading which, as your Lordships know, has been encouraged by the Government in their Local Government Act. Such competition has within it the seeds of injustice, because it can be subsidised out of the rates, not only without the citizens' poll, but also without the production of the balance sheet. As a result, the private trader may well be forced to subsidise his own competitior.
Finally, there is uncertainty about the future. Uncertainty and lack of stability are the greatest enemies of our economic recovery. Heaven knows, enough dislo-
658
cation has been caused by past nationalisation schemes of the Government, but if the evil were confined to the follies already committed, I think there would be more hope for the future. However, some of the more exuberant supporters of the Government, having tasted blood, so to speak, clamour for more, and their views may easily be found in any of those very reputable organs which purvey the views of that particular section of the Party, among them, of course, the New Statesman, from which I should like to quote a few words from an article written anonymously by a Labour M.P., in which he discusses the future programme of the Socialist Party. He says:
"The second main theme of the 1950 programme must be the cost of living.… In the first place, the programme must contain proposals for cutting both the profit margins and the waste man-power in the distributive trades with a view to lowering prices."
The other passage I would like to quote, as one would expect, coming from The Tribune, is in a rather more robust tone, and is written by Mr. Nally, M.P. That says:
"The nation to-day carries a massive burden in an inflated, expensive and often grossly inefficient distributive system, most marked in food. It is necessary to provide new and efficient machinery for handling the people's food and eliminating the horde of parasitic profit-makers who dip so deeply into the housewife's purse. The solution lies somewhere in the field of State co-operative partnership. The best argument for nationalisation is the success of industries already nationalised."
As I read that, I wondered how much loss an industry had to make before Mr. Nally would consider it a failure.
The noble Lord who is to reply will probably tell me that statements from such sources are of no importance and do not represent the views of His Majesty's Government, and I dare say he will be quite fair in doing that. But I am not so certain that he would convince the small trader, because the small trader has seen too many examples where the Government, like the Duke of Plaza Toro, have preferred to lead their regiment from behind. We have had too many examples of what is said by the back-bencher to-day being done by the Front Bench to-morrow. What is more, we know that the General Council of the T.U.C. has recommended rationalisation of distribution, and we know from The Times that discussions have been

659
going on for a very long time. Therefore, it is not entirely surprising that amongst the small men there should be certain anxiety and apprehension, and that the forthcoming census of distribution is apt to be regarded as little more than a Trojan horse—a gift horse which I believe they will look very firmly in the stomach.
What is the result? The difficulties to which I have referred are only a few of those which confront the small trader. I have deliberately ignored the normal trade risks which every trader has to accept, and have concentrated on what seem to me to be the additional and unnecessary burdens which the Government have inflicted upon them and which make the retail trade an uninviting proposition to those already engaged in it and also to those who might otherwise have set up on their own. Faced with a limited chance of profit, and an unlimited chance of loss, it would be scarcely surprising if the small man decided to get out while the going was good. If the Annual Abstract of Statistics is at all correct, this appears to be what he is doing, certainly in the retail food trade. Between 1944 and 1947 there were 3,000 fewer independent retailers and 1,000 more co-operative stores and multiples. That appears to be the trend.
To anybody who, like myself, believes in the small man and wishes to see him have a fair chance, this picture is a disturbing one. If we were to apply to the Government the legal maxim that a man must be held to intend the logical consequences of his actions, I think it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the Government wish to eliminate the small man and set up some alternative system. I am anxious to be fair. I am not entirely certain that we can apply such a maxim to such a Government of planners. We all know that many of the things which they have planned have not happened, and, conversely, that many things which have happened are precisely what they have not planned. I feel, in the circumstances, that we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I feel that if we treat them with this generosity, we are entitled to get from them some indication of their attitude to the small
660
trader in particular, and to distribution in general.
I hope when the noble Lord comes to reply he will be able to tell me that in future the policy of the Government will be to assist the small man, and to make the existing system work rather than to attempt one more reorganisation of our economic system. I know it is argued that the existing system is wasteful in man-power and extravagant in operation, but I do not find this generalisation any more convincing than a great many other generalisations which I have heard. Of course, no system is perfect, and it may well be that there are individual cases of exploitation which merit investigation and appropriate action. But individual cases do not condemn a system. I suggest to the Government, with great respect, that if they are really anxious to save man-power and reduce prices, there are many more obvious fields in which they might try their hands.
For example, consider the vast bureaucracy which they have set up; consider the waste of industrial and commercial man-power in operating the innumerable controls, and consider the expense to the consumer of bulk purchase and the high losses incurred by, and the high prices demanded by, the nationalised industries. Are these extravagances to be left untouched for problematical economy in distribution? Nor is price the only factor; convenience and consumers' choice are matters of great importance. To achieve such service the wholesaler and retailer have to take risks. Surely they are entitled to some reward. Undoubtedly, if a number of retail shops were amalgamated into large units it might be cheaper; but many consumers would be further away from essential sources of supply. Again, if everybody were compelled to wear the same clothes, eat the same food and use the same utensils and furniture, it would be cheaper. But, in that case, I would suggest that the Government hand over to Mr. Harry Pollitt right away.
I hope that in replying the noble Lord will be able to repudiate the views of the Party extremists and to say that the Government intend to encourage the small man. I hope it will be possible to take immediate steps to remedy some of the evils to which I have drawn attention

661
this afternoon, and, in particular, the evil system of purchase tax—which I think should be abolished or, at least, the unjust method of its collection should be. I should like to see the introduction of some system of tax allowances which will take into account the small trader's capital expenses. Finally, I would like to see the abolition of clothes rationing, which, I understand, was recommended to the Minister as long ago as November last.
In conclusion, I wish to say this. If the Government do the things which I have suggested, I feel sure they will strengthen not only the economic but the moral and social structure of our country. There is much talk to-day of democracy and freedom. I believe that in many ways fewer people are really free. There is a tendency for the concentration of industry and commerce into ever larger unions. The Government have done their best to accelerate this tendency by creating new monopolies at the rate of rather more than one a year. It may be that these processes are the inevitable result of the industrial and technical advances of modern times. But, inevitable or not, I cannot believe that the social results are desirable, or that further concentration should be encouraged unless it is absolutely inevitable and necessary. More and more people are becoming dependent upon somebody else, not only for their living but also for their homes, their food, their clothes and their education.
This increasing dependence seems to me to weaken the qualities which spring from freedom alone—the qualities of independence, initiative, thrift, courage and responsibility. As a nation we have owed much to those qualities in the past, and I cannot believe that in the future we can hope to survive without them. These are the qualities which are perhaps particularly those of the small trader. I feel, therefore, that it is a matter of national importance that one field, at any rate, in our economic life should be left where the small trader can operate and where men of initiative and character can start up on their own. Napoleon called us "a nation of shopkeepers." Perhaps we were: but is not that precisely the reason why we eventually defeated Napoleon? Again, let us remember that it was the small
662
man who made possible the miracle of Dunkirk. I beg to move for Papers.
4.32 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, there will be general assent to the proposition that this has been a valuable and a timely Motion, and we on these Benches certainly desire to associate ourselves with it. We have always endeavoured to support the cause of the small man, and I hope we shall continue to do so until such time as the Marxian millennium has annihilated him. I hope that in replying to this Motion the Government may see fit to give us some general indication of their policy—if there be one—in regard to this important subject, for not only would your Lordships welcome a clarification of their views, but I am certain that many thousands of small traders would be glad at this stage to have their profound anxieties and apprehensions either relieved or confirmed.
There have in the past been many attempts by psychologists, sociologists, and even by politicians, to classify mankind. Perhaps one division which would receive a fairly general acceptance would be a division into masters and servants. I would not be misunderstood: I do not mean a slave State, in which all the commissars come first and the rest nowhere. But I mean that there are many men who, by temperament, prefer to be servants, often at high altitude—leading servants of the State, of great corporations or of vast institutions, but none the less servants—whereas there are others who constitutionally are prepared to remain in the foothills, providing always that they can be their own masters. It is from that latter class that the great bulk of the small traders of this country are, drawn. It is often said nowadays that they are uneconomic, and the epithet "uneconomic" on this side of the Iron Curtain is regarded as more or less the equivalent of "bourgeois" on the other side. Yet they form a most valuable section of the community, for they are people, who, as regards the great mass of them, possess qualities of enterprise, of tenacity and of independence.
Those may be middle-class virtues, but at the same time we know now, from the recent panegyrics of the Lord President of the Council, that the middle class possess almost as many virtues as they do votes. Yet

663
it was just this class of persons, the small shopkeeper, who suffered perhaps more acutely during the years of the war than any other section of the populace. The man was called up into the Forces, possibly, after a period of deferment; the woman, perhaps, making an effort to carry on the business for a time and then finding herself in a factory, and the business perhaps brought to a standstill, if not actually destroyed, by enemy action. When he came out there was no Reinstatement Act to put him back into the position that he had held in employment before the war. He had to start again, with no premises, no stock; and in the interval the value of the kind of site that he wanted for a shop had mounted to a height which made any such sum as he was likely to receive as gratuity totally unable to cope with the problem of establishing himself afresh.
The wonder is that so many of these small men did manage, in spite of all those handicaps, somehow to reassert themselves and to re-establish themselves in business on their return. Surely that is a potent indication that there is for these people, in the life of this country, a sure and definite niche. There are some amongst them, and perhaps more outside their ranks, who lean occasionally towards the perpetuation of the policy whereby methods of restriction shall be applied: that in a particular area there shall be only so many greengrocers, so many chemists, so many butchers or whatever it may be. I cannot but think that those who support that view are mistaken. It may be that shopping is rationed, but that seems to me no reason why shops should be rationed. It may be that you cannot buy what you want, but you might at least buy where you want. The spectacle of Whitehall allocating greengrocers to Blackpool may have merits as a colour scheme, but it seems to me to have little else to recommend it.
It is true, of course, that in the years before the war these small traders were peculiarly vulnerable in times of economic depression; but the small man was not the only person who foundered during those days. Of course, it is easier for the big concern to close down a few of its unprofitable branches, or to draw for a time upon its reserves. The small man
664
has no branches, and he is unlikely to have much in the way of reserves; and therefore in a time which it was then the fashion to call an economic blizzard he is prone to perish. The fact remains that people in this country, or many of them, like buying from small shops. Many of your Lordships know small areas, even in the heart of London, where something of the atmosphere of the village is still retained and where there are small, almost "village," general shops to which people go because they enjoy going there—an action which is, of course, very anti-social and unregenerate, but they continue to do so. There is a certain satisfaction in going into a shop where one is known to the shopkeeper and where one's wants are known and catered for. On the other hand, there is very little satisfaction to be obtained from dropping into Selfridge's, or Harrods, for a few minutes' heartening gossip during the morning round. Therefore, there remains constant this desire for the small shop. It may be bad planning, but it is pleasant shopping.
Reference to planning brings my attention to another aspect. I have tried to follow by plans, by maps and by models, many of these designs for the Gardens of Eden (perhaps, in order to avoid political recrimination, I ought to call them "Gardens of Silkin") which are about to spring up over the country. I cannot help wondering whether, in these designs, any real provision is made for the retention of the small shopkeeper as such. When I study these various things, I see that at recurrent—I sometimes think too infrequently recurrent—intervals, there are on these plans the rather intimidating words "Shopping centre." I sometimes wonder whether some of those who are busily designing these new places have in mind a shopping centre consisting only of plate glass and chromium steel, with an ant-heap of flats above. That is not what many people regard as a shopping centre; it is a place where the multiple shops and the general stores may well be able to accommodate themselves, but it is far outside the scope of the small man.
Is it too much to expect that in these new towns there will be areas, separate from the main and more grandiose centre, where people can still perform the operation known as "running round the corner to get something"? Too

665
many of these big shopping centres would appear from the evidence of the maps of these towns to be at an unreasonable distance from the homes of the smaller people who will have to live there. Moreover, one wonders whether it is the intention to confine shopping centres and other arrangements for shopkeeping to the lock-up shop, or whether there is to be provision for the man who wants to live over his shop, and who does not want to incur the transport costs of going to and from his business, perhaps once or twice a day. I think it is true to say that there is something very attractive about the atmosphere of a shop which, when you go into it, discloses a parlour beyond and the life of a family going on. It is preferable to merely going into a lock-up shop which has nothing behind it but a store, which may or may not contain anything, according to whether or not the ration supplies have arrived.
These points need looking at with care when new towns are being developed. The small man has much to contend with in these days. He has the present rating system, which may later require overhaul; he has difficulties in regard to arrangements in restraint of trade; he has the competition of the co-operative societies, and the competition of municipal trading. Let those in whose eyes size is the only merit reflect sometimes that the majority of these great stores that have come into being, here and elsewhere in the world, have in many, if not in most, cases sprung from one humble shop, started years ago by a man of vision and energy. And let them not be in too great a hurry to eliminate the small trader from the society of the future. If he is suffered to survive, the country as a whole, in ways not only tangible but intangible, will be the richer for his survival.
4.47 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate, and I should like to make early reference, if I may, to the Annual Abstract of Statistics, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. Unfortunately, in the Abstract of Statistics they have departed from the classification which they laid down in 1940, inasmuch as they have excluded all retail shops that are not dealing in sugar; all shops with no sugar registrations are, so far as
666
the grocery and provision sides are concerned, excluded from the figures. In the year 1947 those shops numbered no less than 19,000. Tea shops were also excluded; by that I mean shops dealing by way of speciality in the sale of tea and coffee. Nearly 24,000 of these did not appear in the figures of the year 1947. Had the noble Lord quoted a figure for 1940 the comparison would have been much worse than it was, because in 1940 there were 166,900 independent retailers—that is, on the grocery and provision side—whereas in 1947 the figure had dropped to 120,400. The difference, in my opinion, is due to the fact that all those shops that had less than twenty-five sugar registrations ceased to be able to supply sugar, and they have been excluded from this particular figure.
In order to confirm my impression I should like to give your Lordships percentages of sugar registrations of the multiples, the co-operatives and the independent retailers. Taking the year 1940 as the basis, the multiples had 24 per cent. of the sugar registrations, the co-operatives 28 per cent. and the independent retailers 48 per cent. In 1947, out of sugar registrations totalling 46,891,000 the multiples held 21.4 per cent., the co-operatives 26.5 per cent. and the independent retailers 52.1 per cent. As compared with the year 1940, therefore, the independent retailers had improved their position to the extent of 4.1 per cent.
I am not going to enter into the general argument regarding the merits or demerits of the small trader. Suffice it to say that the small trader for the last hundred years has occupied an important position in the distributive economy of the country. My own opinion is that he will continue to play an important part in the distributive economy of the country, but I think it is essential, in his own interests, that the small trader should try to rationalise himself; because, unless we are to get efficiency from the small trader, he will cease to exist. We hear from time to time that, so far as nationalised industries are concerned, one of the essentials is that of efficiency. I do not quarrel with that. I think it is essential that there should be efficiency. But we cannot restrict efficiency merely to one form of industry. It has to apply to every branch of industry, whether it is nationalised, and whether it is distributive.

667
In that connection, I would like to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to an extract from the Grocer dated April 18, 1942. It deals with a speech that was given by Mr. C. P. Houghton, who at that time was the head of the Wholesale and Retail Section of the Ministry of Food. He was dealing with the question of sector distribution. This is what it said:
"Mr. Houghton said one of the most uneconomic forms of trading was the supply of small parcels of goods transported long distances from different sources. Out of a random sample of fifty-seven retail shops, they found that the average number of wholesalers per shop was 6.9 and the number of manufacturers supplying the average shop"—
that is, of the 57 samples—
"was 33.6. Of a larger retail shop with 1,480 registrations the retailer had twenty-four wholesalers and ninety-nine manufacturers. Another retailer with 600 registrations had ten wholesalers and sixty manufacturers supplying him."
Whether we like it or not, one has to accept the position that there is need for some form of rationalisation so far as those particular distributors are concerned.
One would have imagined from the speech of the noble Lord that nearly all the small traders were going out of existence because of the competition of the co-operatives and the multiples. In the case of grocery, provisions and general, the multiples in 1940 had 15,000 shops; in 1947 they had grown to 15,300 shops. In 1940, the co-operatives had 9,500 shops, and that number had grown by 1947 to 10,300. When we come to butchery establishments—again, small traders operate in that particular branch of foodstuffs—we find that the multiples had 10,448 shops and the co-operatives 5,420, while the independent retailers had 29,317. The trade of the multiples per shop was £95 per week, and of the co-operatives £85 per week, while the independent retailers, who are the small people, were able to do a trade of £64 per week.
When we turn to another branch of the trade into which small people enter more frequently than into any other branch—that is, the sale of sugar confectionery and chocolate—there is really an interesting story to tell. On the grocery side, where they sell sugar confectionery and chocolate, the multiples had 7,760
668
outlets, and the co-operatives 8,193, while the independent grocers had outlets numbering 108,981. In the case of sugar confectionery shops proper, including tobacconists and newsagents—and anybody who has a little capital and does not know very much about business generally wants to buy that particular type of business because he thinks it is easy to run—the multiples had 3,111 outlets, the co-operatives none, and the independents 91,406. If you take a combination of those selling points of confectionery and chocolate, you find that the multiples had 4.8 per cent. and the co-operatives 3.62 per cent., while the independents had 90.69 per cent. My noble friend will agree that, on that account at any rate, there is not very much competition with the co-operatives.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that he was not interested in the question of taxing the dividends of the co-operative societies, but there are some people who are very anxious to do that. I should like to present to your Lordships' House a point of view which is often ignored in a consideration of this subject. It is that, if there were taxation of the co-operative dividend, the co-operatives could avoid payment of that tax by reducing their prices after allowing for costs of distribution. In the year 1947, the co-operatives distributed £39,500,000 by way of dividend on purchases. That represented roughly 8.92 per cent. of turnover. The national retail trade (excluding alcoholic beverages) was £3,743,000,000, and if all the shops had a return on their trade similar to that of the co-operatives, there would have been a surplus of £294,000,000. It is a very simple question to ask, What would have been the effect on the small trader if co-operatives had cut their prices by 8.93 per cent.? If the small traders had had to follow, there would have been no surplus available for them to carry on their businesses, and therefore no return upon them.
May I, for a moment, deal with one other point raised by the noble Lord—the question of the allocation of poultry, rabbits and sugar over Christmas. Incidentally, the Minister of Food, in deciding upon a new allocation, did a vast amount of good, so far as some of the small traders were concerned. He did it for this reason: that poultry and rabbits had been allocated on the basis

669
of a datum performance. That datum performance related to supplies taken in 1939. The same thing had applied to points goods, such as canned fruits, canned salmon and canned meats. Any small trader who was operating in 1939 and had a small performance in the purchase of those commodities was not able to get any increased allocation, irrespective of the additional registrations which he might have. It is true to say that, as the sugar registrations of the independent retailer increased by 4.1 per cent. in 1947, we secured his additional supplies. When the Minister made the departure from datum he benefited to the same extent as the co-operatives. The only people who suffered were those independents or multiples who had lost sugar registrations.
In the case of rabbits, in spite of the fact that the co-operative movement has about 16 per cent. of the meat registrations of the country, it was allowed only 1½ per cent. of the supplies that came in. The departure made by the Minister gave to the co-operative movement roughly 11½ per cent. against the 1½ per cent., but still left them 4½ per cent. short, based on meat registrations. But that departure of the Minister had this very important effect. Those who were merchants and wholesalers were holding stocks in the hope that when it came to Christmas they would be able to dispose of them on the black market, but once supplies reached co-operative shops they had to give supplies to their own people at prices which were rather less than they had anticipated getting.
In conclusion, may I say that when you talk of small people and the desires of small traders you must not ignore the fact that the co-operatives represent roughly 10,000,000 small people who have subscribed a small amount of capital to enter into business on their own account, and that out of their mutual trade they return to themselves the difference between the costs of distribution and the selling values. Last year there was a distribution of roughly £40,000,000 which represented no less than £4 per membership of the co-operative movement, and that £4 added materially to the value of real wages. I have every sympathy with the small trader, but in putting forward his claims do not let us forget that justice should be meted out to those 10,000,000 people who trade for their mutual benefit.
5.3 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure that every member of your Lordships House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Lloyd for having raised this vital subject. I believe I am correct in saying that this is the first occasion either in this House or in another place since the end of the war where the focus of Parliamentary searchlight has been put upon the small trader. It seems to me that we should fairly and reasonably ask ourselves certain questions as regards the small trader. The first is: Is he necessary? The second is: If he is necessary, can he survive? Thirdly, if he is to survive, are there steps which should be taken now in order to help him so to do? I propose, with your Lordships' permission, briefly to examine those three questions.
I submit that his value is very great, and in assessing his value it is worth remembering the pre-war trading figures. We have had many figures this afternoon dealing with the periods before, during and after the war, but the first set I would like to give you are those given for the division of total retail sales in 1939. For my information, always wishing to convince noble Lords opposite that the source of information is good in their eyes, I went to an authority on this subject—a Mr. Hoffmann of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. In 1939, approximately 9 per cent, of the retail trade was done by co-operative stores, 26 per cent, by multiple stores, while independent shops of various kinds, including street traders, did the remaining 65 per cent. With those figures I think we establish at any rate that before the war the small trader played a very large and important part in community life.
As regards his actual service to the community, my noble friend Lord Reading made a moving appeal for recognition of that service. I think it is widely recognised, and it has been well put by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who unfortunately is not in the House. From the Benches opposite he put the matter clearly during a debate on a Bill dealing with the reinstatement of retail shop premises when he said this:
"In theory, the big unit, the big chain store, should give better service, but in practice that is not the case. The decent little shopkeeper is usually the man who gives you by far the

671
best, for the simple reason that he depends on good will for his livelihood."
My Lords, as my noble friend said, housewives are extremely anti-social as regards the theoretically planned State, where they have to do as they are told, because they insist on continuing with their preference for the "little man round the corner."
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that efficient economy of distribution was really, as it were, the test as to whether a system of small traders should or should not be encouraged to survive. He said, "If you on those Benches insist on efficiency and economy in nationalised industries, you must also insist upon it when you put forward your point of view for the survival of the small trader "I think that puts his observation fairly. I have heard so often from those Benches, in regard to losses in nationalised industries, and particularly aviation, the defence that they have such great social importance, and therefore we must not be so small-minded as to look at the pounds, shillings and pence, but must accept the grander conception of value in regard to those industries. I would only say that if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, advances that point of view from that side of the House, we also are entitled to advance it; and I submit that the cost of distribution is not the final and complete test of the value of the small trader. The independent trader preserves competition, because if he "goes to the wall" the retail trade remains to be divided up and fought for between the co-operative stores, the municipal enterprises and the multiple combines.
I believe also that it is good for the commercial vitality of the nation that there should be channels or an opportunity for small men who refuse to become planned cogs, following that perfect blue print of the totally planned England which allows no place for the small trader. One has but to read the literature of the theoretical planners to come to that conclusion. But the individualist insists on opening shops where he thinks there is a need, even though the planned blue print may say it is not necessary. We on this side of the House reject absolutely the point of view which has been put forward by Sir Joseph
672
Hallsworth at the Blackpool Conference of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. He said there:
"Anyone with sufficient money and impudence can 'crash into' the distributive trades."
That seems to me a most reprehensible sentiment to put forward. Since when has a Britisher who is willing to risk his skill and his resources in pioneering his own way of commerce deserved the label "impudent"?
My Lords, I think there is a moral value of the small trader, because he forms a close social contact between the supplier and the consumer. The small trader is a member of his community; he spends his takings in the community. Often he is engaged in local government, and almost certainly he is engaged in the work of the local chamber of trade. He serves his community and he spends his profit locally, whereas the hard-working members of the staffs of multiple shops and co-operative stores are always answerable for policy and profits to some great organisation at the centre. There is a great danger that we may not pay sufficient attention to the question which we have to answer now: Can the small trader survive?
That survival must depend on the Government's attitude and intentions. We have had a reassuring speech from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who has played such a distinguished part in the Co-operative Movement. He has said, in effect, "Good luck to the small trader if he can survive against the competition which I represent!" But not all speakers in the noble Lord's hierarchy speak with that kind voice. Take the words of Mr. Neil Beaton, who was at the time a leader of the Co-operative Movement, at a Scottish conference during the war. He seemed to me to express what is felt today by many who think the small trader is in danger. After referring to the fact that the co-operative societies hoped to open a shop in every town and village in the Highlands, he said:
"There is a fight. The small shopkeeper will have to go, whether he likes it or not."
Now let us take Mr. Peddy, director of the Hull Co-operative Society. This is what he said:
"Large-scale monopolies are meaning to get the trade of the small shopkeepers as we are. There are thousands of shops more than are necesary."
Next, I invite your Lordships to refer

673
to the most modern document, Problems of Distribution, which has been issued within the last few days by the Co-operative Society. Let us look at paragraphs 20 and 21, on page 23, where the real aim of the Co-operative Society is stated, for all who care to read, as follows:
"The Co-operative Movement as an organ of voluntary democracy expects that its rôle in a Socialist Britain will be more important than it has been in a capitalist Britain. It should be regarded as a desirable alternative to the rigidity of pattern which is so often a feature of state organisation."
That does not look so good, perhaps, from the point of view of anyone interested in municipal trading. The next paragraph says:
"What the Co-operative Movement has already achieved indicates the use to which it might be put if it were more whole-heartedly supported by other wings of the democratic movement."
Small traders can hardly feel reassured, therefore, by the pleasant words of encouragement and toleration spoken to-day by the noble Lord who represents the Co-operative Movement. It seems to be so clearly their wish to put small traders out of business in order to obtain a larger share of the distributive business of this country.
The present position is as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has described it. The war and the call-up have closed down thousands of businesses run by independent men, who now have to try to re-start their businesses on far smaller resources than are possessed by the great stores and the co-operatives. The co-operatives and the multiple stores can go to a town, and can afford to buy the best sites. They can afford to establish branches which can trade at a loss, if necessary for several years, in order to get the custom which small shops have enjoyed. In these great organisations the losses of one small local branch are offset by the profits made by many other established branches in other parts of the country. The "big boys"—the co-operatives and the multiple shops—can advertise centrally, and they can give credit facilities which the small man cannot give. Lip service has been paid to the small trader by various Ministers of the present Government—is the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, amused at lip service?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am just wondering how much is being paid at the present time.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I will tell the noble Lord. Mr. Herbert Morrison has spoken of "the rights and freedoms of the lesser firms." Mr. Herbert Morrison is the noble Lord's own "boss," to whom he will have to report if he says anything wrong to-day. This is what Mr. Herbert Morrison has said.
"There is a great deal to be said for survival of the small firms, of the family undertaking."
Mr. Morrison also said that he did not wish to see the individual crushed out. The noble Lord asked me what lip service is being paid. I have just told him. Now that is all to the good. But I ask: Does that view—the view expressed by Mr. Herbert Morrison—really hold sway in his Party generally, or do the Socialist "back-room boys," some of whose statements I have just quoted, really hold power and rule? Do these views on the desirability of individuality surviving in our commerce hold sway, or must traders qualify to some theoretical standard of size and turnover before being allowed to exist?
The political views expressed by Mr. Herbert Morrison sturdily defend individualism, but it is not always so. I look at the words of some others who have taken part in these controversies. In the Sunday Times during the war there was a forum—co-operative societies against the small trader. One who took part in that forum wrote this—I quote his words:
"There is no reason why a single branch concern with adequate turnover should not be as efficient as individual branches of multiples. Of an estimated total of 750,000 pre-war shops, 90 per cent. independent traders had an average turnover of just over £2,000 per annum. Is that considered a turnover adequate to efficiency?"
I think it will be agreed on all sides of the House that the writer of that was inferring that anyone who had not a turnover of £2,000 per year could not be efficient, and therefore could not comply with his standard of definition as to what should be allowed to exist. That was written by a gentleman named Mr. George W. Lucas, President of the Motor Agents' Association. It was a contribution to that interesting discussion in the Sunday Times. Mr. George Lucas was putting forward a sort of means test. If you had got £2,000 turnover a year, Mr. Lucas would allow you to continue in business. If you could not accomplish

675
a turnover of £2,000 a year, you could not be efficient, according to Mr. Lucas's standard.
I have quoted what he wrote. To-day, we are to have the privilege of hearing Lord Lucas of Chilworth speak on behalf of the Government. I shall be interested to hear whether Lord Lucas speaks with the voice of Mr. Herbert Morrison, and will express the sentiments of Mr. Herbert Morrison, or whether he will speak with the voice of Mr. George Lucas, President of the Motor Agents' Association. We shall await with great interest what the noble Lord is to say. There are black clouds gathering at the present time over the head of the small man.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke on the taxation of co-operative societies. I do not want to go into that matter to-day. I would dearly like to have the time and opportunity to debate that subject with him, because in my view and in the view of many others the co-operative societies to-day enjoy advantages of taxation which was never the intention of those who passed the Finance Act which laid down their present taxation position. In those days it was never contemplated that such a large amount of trading would be done at co-operative shops by those who were not members of a society—trading which nevertheless gives a benefit to those who are members when they receive their dividend. A further important concession was made to the co-operative societies in the Finance Act of 1947, which gave them a preferential rate of profit tax—5 per cent. instead of 12½ per cent. And I quote Mr. Glenvil Hall, Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the present Government, when he said that although this applied to all industrial and provident societies, it was the co-operative societies who would be the chief organisations to benefit. All along the line the co-operative societies have an advantage in their taxable position as compared with the private trader.
Now I understand that the T.U.C. at Margate called upon the Government to make an investigation into the distributive trade. My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, dealt with the straws in the wind, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, tried to blow them away—the straws about Mr. Strachey's allocation of sugar and his allocation of Christmas turkeys. The
676
whole tendency in legislation is to go against the private trader and help the co-operative society. The private trader is penalised under the Town and Country Planning Act. The widow cannot turn her front parlour into a shop without incurring the risk of a development charge. The shopkeeper is in doubt whether he can legally advertise his wares on his own plot of land, because he becomes liable to development charge. Now the nationalised corporations are threatening to go into the retail trade. When the Electricity Act was passing through this House, we protested about certain powers for trading being given to the corporations. To-day the Electricity Area Boards in certain areas are circularising electrical consumers offering to sell lamps on credit, delivered to their doors, although I grant that they are selling them at the retail price. I consider that unfair trading. When it was done by a private electricity company, it was done at risk to the shareholders' money, and the directors were accountable to the shareholders for the result if they lost money. But to-day it is done virtually with public money. Provided the accounts are made to balance over a period of years, the Treasury is perfectly happy—and if the accounts do not balance, the losses have to be made up by the taxpayer.
There is a growth of municipal trading which is a menace to the small shopkeeper. I will cite only one instance, in West London, where a municipality is going into the retail wireless trade and is offering to deliver wireless sets on credit terms. I will give one more instance of this weight against the small trader. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, talked about the need for preserving sites in new towns where small traders could have shops. There is a tendency for certain Socialist councils to give a preference to co-operative societies over private traders. I would instance Wolverhampton, where the Socialist council allotted the first six sites for shops on a new housing scheme to a co-operative society, and ex-Service men and other traders were informed that applications for the remaining sites would be considered at a later date.
I will conclude by saying that private traders ask for no special advantages; they ask only for a fair opportunity. If

677
the Government declarations, such as that made by Mr. Herbert Morrison, are not just so much "eye-wash" about a year before the election to reassure a section that refuses to be planned, the Government should now declare their recognition of the value to the community of the independent small trader, even the small trader with a turnover of up to £2,000 a year.
I would like to make some suggestions. First, I suggest that there should be short loans on easy terms for re-starting small businesses, with a preference given to ex-Service men; secondly, that new towns should include provision and plans for small shops on the lines pointed out by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. Thirdly, I suggest that the Government should see that what I might call Left Wing local authorities do not squeeze out independent men in an unfair way, as I have just instanced. Fourthly, I suggest that the present system of rating, whereby a bank in a prominent position in a town may pay less rates on a lower assessment than a small shop, should be reformed, so as to help small businesses. Fifthly, there should be protection for small traders in any projected reductions of purchase tax in forthcoming Budgets. Sixthly, I suggest some reform of taxation. I do not want to go into the controversy about co-operative taxation, but there is a genuine feeling that at the present time the co-operative societies are enjoying an advantage which was never intended, If the Government are really in favour of the small trader, a long-term charter on the lines I have indicated, ensuring his preservation, should be granted. If, on the other hand, the Government do not believe in small traders as an essential and vital part of our community, let them say so, and the small trader will know where he stands.
5.28 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, couched his Motion in terms specific to the small trader, he has widened the discussion until it has covered the whole distributive chain and the space it occupies in the economic life of this country. I gather, in spite of the banter of the noble Lord, that that was his intention. I also gather that beneath that banter there was serious concern on his part, and that he expected from me a serious reply.
678
The noble Lord started by expressing regret that the Socialist Party did not represent the independent trader, and that there was an entire absence of representatives of the co-operative societies on his side of the House. How fortunate the noble Lord is that my noble friend Lord Williams is a director of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and that I stand at this despatch box as one who before taking upon himself the respectable trade of politics served for years in industrial life as an independent trader—and one, I may tell the noble Lord, who does not take his instructions from some of the gentlemen he has mentioned who sit on the back benches in another place. I was rather taken aback that in his criticism of the large scale trading of co-operative societies, municipalities, and other forms of trading, he made only a fleeting reference to multiple concerns. I wonder whether that was out of consideration for his "lord and master" from whom he takes cinders, the Chairman of the Party of which the noble Lord is such an adornment. I hope the noble Lord will take that shaft from me in the same good humour in which I have taken those directed at myself.
Perhaps it would be as well if I attempted to give a serious reply to this debate—a debate which has contained more irrelevances than I have heard in your Lordships' House for a long time. I will try to place before your Lordships some of the considerations which I think have to form the background in any consideration of the future, and to bring into this peculiar set-up of producer and distributor the one factor which is usually left out of consideration—namely, the consumer. Although the data which has been available for a serious study of this matter is all too scarce, there have been many organisations of repute which have given some thought and consideration to the factors. In this country we have never had a census of distribution. Everyone deplores the fact that the proposed census has had to be postponed. When it is held, it will fill large gaps in our knowledge. However, there have been many surveys and, whatever they have brought forward, they have proved one thing—namely, that the cost of bringing the buyer and seller together is too high, and that the spread between the cost to the producer and the price to the consumer

679
is unjustifiably wide. If no other has emerged, that fact has, and it has been contained in every Report of any Committee or Commission that has studied this problem.
I would remind your Lordships of words contained in the Linlithgow Report, published in 1922. It there says:
"Distribution costs are a far heavier burden than society will permanently consent to bear,"
and also that it should
"be possible to concentrate in the hands of one intermediary the successive functions now performed by several."
Even the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he occupied the responsible position of Minister of Food, said that the distributive trades were one of the most extravagant and luxurious factors in our national life. And there is no denying this. Before the war, the gentleman referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made a study of this question, and I had intended to quote some figures that emerged from that study, of which the noble Lord mentioned one in his speech.
One of the most authoritative investigations and surveys made of this problem before the war was by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. What did that reveal? It revealed that there were 750,000 retail shops in this country serving goods over a counter—that is, 750,000 retail shops supplying something under 12,000,000 families. The turnover over those counters amounted to approximately £2,600,000,000 per annum. Ten per cent. of the 750,000 shops did 45 per cent. of the turnover, and a simple division sum will show that the total turnover per annum of all those shops was approximately £3,000. If you take the 45 per cent. which the 10 per cent. of the shops did, the average turnover of the remainder was £2,000 per annum. Those are figures which were produced by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
The statement to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, referred, said that those most competent to judge have stated that the lowest turnover per annum that a food shop could have to maintain a reasonable amount of stock turnover was £4,000 per annum. Those are the figures I quoted in 1944 or 1945, and I
680
quote them again. Your Lordships may draw from them what deductions you like, but there is one deduction which you must draw from them—namely, that one of the troubles of the small retail trader before the war was that he could not get a sufficient turnover to cover adequately the cost of his operations. It is not the Marxian millennium to which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred, of which the small trader has to be afraid; he has to be afraid, if I may use the expression, of the multiplicity of his own kind.
What are the reasons for that growth? The old Adam Smith theory, which the noble Lord and I learned years ago—he more recently than I—was that if you put two grocers into one street where only one had existed before, the competition between those two would give lower prices to the consumer. That was true the day that Adam Smith uttered it, but completely untrue the day that the branded article arrived. The price fixing and price maintenance that has been built up in the retail trade as a consequence of the advent of the branded article has been one of the primary causes for its inefficiency. What happened to my two mythical grocers? They divided the turnover, and then had to have their margins increased. I was surprised that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in a contribution to this debate—as usual with the noble Marquess, of a very high standard—did not attack one of the biggest enemies—namely, restrictive practices, which were built up after the arrival of the branded article.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I did not go into it in detail, but I think when he looks back he will realise that I said one of the things the small man had to contend with was the state of law in regard to the restraint of trade.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I know that the noble Marquess has on many occasions referred to it. Those are some of the factors. There is another factor to which my noble friend, Lord Williams, referred—namely, the intermediaries who insert themselves between the small trader and the producer, intermediaries who erect their "toll gates" upon the path from producer to retailer serving in many cases little or no economic purpose whatsoever. Those are some

681
of the problems which are militating against the economic existence of the small retailer. I will return to the position of the small retailer later on.
May I now come to some of the specific points raised by the noble Lord? As to the position of the small trader under control, the Location of Retail Businesses Order was revoked in 1946, since when no licence has been required to open a nonfood retail establishment. In businesses of this class no licence for trade is required, except for milk retailers, butchers, and confectioners. I could argue to my own satisfaction, as well as the noble Lord argued the opposite to his, that the lot of the small retailer and shopkeeper is better under controls and rationing than it was before. He has enjoyed what the noble Lord will understand—the "closed shop." He has had his customers tied to him; he has not had to go out and find them, and only at periodical intervals has he had to stand competition in the flow and ebb of retail customers. The noble Lord mentioned retail margins, and said that they were too high in some cases and too low in others.
LORD LLOYD: I do not think I ever said that. What I did say was that some of the retail margins were fixed as far back as 1939, and certainly needed to be examined. What I said further was that retail margins might be perfectly satisfactory if it were merely a question of running costs, but that another factor was the question of capital costs, and that was what made them inadequate.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I understood the noble Lord's point precisely, but margins are fixed over the whole range of goods as a percentage of the selling price. As the price rises, the profit rises.
LORD LLOYD: The profit rises, but equally so does the cost of replacing the trader's stock. That is the whole point of my argument.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord will bear with me I will deal with all his points—not one will escape. Would the noble Lord tell me how he would like margins fixed? If he fixes a margin at what will remunerate the least efficient unit—and that is how margins are usually fixed—what about the efficient unit? If you fix it at the level which will give adequate coverage
682
to the efficient unit, then the small trader or the inefficient member of the distributing community will go out of business. That is one of the problems of fixing margins. The noble Lord is surely not going to argue that if a margin is fixed which will give a trader with a low turnover a reasonable profit, and he doubles that turnover and therefore doubles his gross profit, his overheads double at the same time?
When the noble Lord comes to the question of purchase tax he has my entire sympathy. That tax is something which bears heavily upon the retailer, and I will not deny it. But a solution to the difficulty has baffled the best brains of the Customs and Excise, the best brains of His Majesty's Treasury and, incidentally, the best brains of the retail associations. It is very easy to talk about rebating purchase tax. All noble Lords are cognisant with the mechanics of this taxation. It is easy to rebate on an easily identifiable article, bat unfortunately the easily identifiable articles are all high priced articles and are usually luxury goods. On the small article, which is lost without trace in the maze of distribution, it is an impossibility. If the noble Lord can succeed in evolving a scheme where all others have failed, I can assure him that it will receive very sympathetic consideration, because we are fully alive to every one of the points he has raised. These matters are easy of arrangement to the satisfaction of the retailer on a seller's market, when prices are rising; but on a buyer's market, when prices are falling, it is a different story entirely. I think my noble friend Lord Williams has adequately answered the noble Lord's points with regard to co-operative society economics. I do not suppose I could ever convince the noble Lord—although I hope to do so before I sit down—but I was not surprised that he did not make much of the hoary old story of the dividend of the co-operative societies being a trading profit and being deduct-able for taxation purposes. The co-operative societies are in no different position from that of the noble Lord. If at the end of the year the noble Lord likes to give all his customers a rebate on their purchases as an inducement to them to buy from him, for taxation purposes he is allowed to charge that against his profit and loss account in exactly the same way as the co-operative societies do.

683
They are in no different position from that of the ordinary trader. The purchase dividend which the member gets is not in effect a dividend; it is a reduction in the price of the goods he has purchased. The dividends on the shares of the co-operative societies are taxed in exactly the same way as all other dividends. The only difference is that they are not taxed at source, but they are returnable for taxation.
The only point that I think worthwhile discussing upon this matter is one which has not been discussed—I was almost going to say for years and years and years. It is the point of recent introduction which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, about a co-operative society being taxed at only 10 per cent. to-day on distributed as well as undistributed profits. The reason is that the distributed profits of the co-operative societies are really looked upon as thrift investments. I need not go into the whole question, because the noble Lord knows the story as well as I do. If there is a difference of opinion as to whether it is right or not, I am afraid it will have to remain a difference of opinion. I do not think there is any quarrel between us as to what are the facts. Nor need I go into the other points which the noble Lord raised; I think I have covered the majority of the details.
I would now like to return to an aspect of the problem upon which I think I can make some useful comment, and that is what noble Lords have popularly called the battle between the large and the small trader. I deplore it very much, and I rather thought that the noble Lord only just steered clear of making it a political issue. It is not a political issue, however much noble Lords on the other side may endeavour to make it so because next year happens to be 1950. In any future rationalisation of distribution an effort must be made—and this is where I find myself 100 per cent. in agreement with both noble Lords who have spoken from the other side, and with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading—to create and maintain trading conditions which will give the enterprise and the initiative of the small trader a fair chance of a fair reward. Those conditions have never existed in the past. It is no good noble Lords trying to argue that this is a struggle between the multiple store and
684
the independent trader, or between the large and the small man. The public interest demands that the struggle should be between the efficient and the inefficient unit. There must always be a wide network of distribution if the policy of the dispersal of the population of this country is to be a success. In the last analysis it must be efficiency which wins survival—not whether the trader is a large or a small one. That is in the public interest, and in the consumer's interest; and in the world of the future there will be room for all in their proper sphere. It is efficient service to the consumer which will eventually determine whether or not one succeeds or another fails.
The noble Lord asked me what is the Government's policy? I do not know whether noble Lords expect to get some profound statement from me. The statement I shall make may not be profound but it is, I hope, eminently sensible. The Government's policy is not to return to the economics of laissez faire. On the other hand this Government have no plans for nationalizing the retail trades. They certainly have no intention of driving the small shopkeeper out of business. The aim of this Government is to loosen the grip of those restrictive practices which have gained such a firm hold on the distributive trades, and to maintain conditions in the future in which the more efficient units of distribution, whoever they may be, whether they be large or small, have the opportunity to increase their trade—and, what is even more important, are allowed to pass on to the public the benefits of their efficiency. The national interest demands this. That is the aim and object of His Majesty's Government.
Much has been said about Government controls. But noble Lords have never said what control they would take off. I know that this is a very popular subject; but noble Lords will realise that the overriding responsibility of the Government is the safeguarding of the position of the ordinary man.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord said we had never made clear what controls we would take off. I should like to make this point, because it is important. We have always said that we would retain controls which ensure fair distribution where shortages exist, but that we would not continue

685
vexatious controls or controls for political purposes. We would take off the control which forbids anyone to have a powder puff made of a piece of material more than four inches square; and the one which forbids anyone to buy a skipping rope longer than 9 ft. 6 in. Those are examples of the stupid controls which, amongst others, we would remove.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The first part of the noble Lord's interjection describes exactly His Majesty's Government's policy.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: What about the second part?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The days when I knew anything about skipping ropes are long past; and I have never had any intimate knowledge of the construction of a powder puff.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But that is one of the controls now.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not hopeful that the answer which I have given to the noble Lord who raised this matter will satisfy him; but I have tried to be objective and reasonable, and to treat the matter with the seriousness which it deserves.
5.58 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, at this late hour it would not be either right or appropriate that I should enter into further argument with the noble Lord who has just sat down, on a subject on which we could probably argue until late in the night. I would like, however, to say how grateful I am to him for the speech he has made and for the way in which he has tried to meet my points. I am sorry to say that I do not think he has met many of them, and I do not feel that when, in a discussion about purchase tax, he asks me to provide a solution, we are getting much further. After all, that is the purpose for which he is on that Bench. However, let that pass. Nor do I feel that he has given me any very clear policy as to what His Majesty's Government intend to do in the future. However, he has given one assurance, which is that the Government do not intend to drive out the small trader, and with that assurance I feel that I must be content. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AMERICAN AID AND EUROPEAN PAYMENTS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I have been asked to make an announcement with regard to to-morrow's business. In order to meet the general convenience, the Scottish Criminal Justice Bill will be taken as the last business to-morrow, Thursday, when the House is meeting at 2.30, instead of at four o'clock as is usual on Thursday. The effect will be that proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill will begin at about four o'clock.
PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
Report from the Standing Orders Committee, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Bill ought to be dispensed with: Read, and agreed to.
WARWICKSHIRE AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1949 SOUTH-EAST YORKSHIRE AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1949
Special Procedure Orders (together with certificates from the Minister of Health): Laid before the House, pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and ordered to lie on the Table.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS, 1949
Draft Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Representation of the People Act, 1948: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at six o'clock.