Sitting of 30 January 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Naval Base, Invergordon
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the future of Invergordon naval base.
    The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The decision to reduce the naval base at Invergordon was taken with reluctance in the interests of economy. This is only one of a number of similar reductions which have been or are to be made throughout our organisation in an effort to streamline the shore support of the Navy. Apart from the Oil Fuelling Depot, which will be kept in active use, the facilities at Invergordon will either be disposed of or put into care and maintenance. I can assure my hon. Friend that we know how serious this decision is to the people of Invergordon, and I promise him that we will do all we can to help them.
    Mr. MacLeod: I should like first of all to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and wish him every success. Does he realise that the burgh of Invergordon feels that there is a moral obligation on the Admiralty to do all it can to lighten this blow to the area, to see that those who will become unemployed get employment in other work, to ensure that there will not be any stagnation of buildings but that they will be let for industrial development wherever possible, and also to see that the central pier will be handed back in the condition in which it was taken over, as it is now in very bad repair indeed?
    Mr. Galbraith: We are well aware of the considerations which have prompted
    966
    my hon. Friend to raise this matter. As I stated, we will do everything we possibly can to limit the effects of the with drawal of naval facilities from Invergordon.

    Oil Surveys (West Africa)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what information has been collected by the Admiralty survey vessel H.M.S. "Owen" on the feasibility of loading oil tankers by sea-loading submarine line off the coast of the eastern delta of the River Niger; what quantities of oil have been found at Olvitiri or in other areas of Nigeria; and to what extent the Government of Nigeria are participating in these operations.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): Information about the depth of water, the nature of the sea bed, tides and weather has been made available to Shell Tankers Ltd. on whose behalf H.M.S. "Owen" undertook the survey. It is for this firm to assess whether the project is feasible.
    I understand from my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary that oil has been found at Oloibiri, but it is not possible to say in what quantities until the results of the production tests are known which are to be undertaken later this year. Oil has also been found at Afam, where preliminary drilling continues.
    Vessels of the Federal Government of Nigeria assisted H.M.S. "Owen" with the surveying work, but neither the Federal Government nor the Eastern Regional Government in Nigeria participated in the mining operations.
    Mr. Brockway: In welcoming the Minister to his post, may I ask him whether he will, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, very seriously consider this development of oil in West Africa in order to avoid the conditions which have arisen in the Middle East, and will he particularly look at the possibilities of extending the association of the local government and of the co-operative movement with these enterprises?
    Mr. Soames: The Admiralty rôle has been limited to the survey of the area,

    967
    and I know that the Colonial Office has very much in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that Nigeria is the largest British Colony in Africa, with over 30 million people. and is well on the way towards self-government, is it not desirable now, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Government and people of Nigeria should be associated closely with this work, and ought not the Minister to give consideration to that?
    Mr. Soames: That is a question for the Colonial Office.

    War-time Oil Stocks, Far East (Compensation Claim)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the position with regard to the claim by oil companies for compensation for oil stocks that disappeared in the closing stages of the war in the Far East in 1945; and if he will name the oil companies concerned.
    Mr. Soames: It was decided on legal advice not to appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment referred to in the Answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 4th June, 1956. That claim has, therefore, been met. The names of the claimants were N.V. de Bataafsche Petrloeum Maatschappij and N.V. Nederlandsindische Aardolie Maatschappij and N.V. Standard-Vacuum Petroleum Maatschappij.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people in this country who feel that the oil companies have had far too much money already from the British people? Can he tell us how much money has been paid over in this case?
    Mr. Soames: The sum involved is £724,000. Although the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, the fact remains that this was a legal decision by which we are bound to abide.

    Oil Bunkering Facilities, Gibraltar (Commercial Users)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what decisions have been reached in the discussions in respect of the allocation of oil bunkerage space from Government installations in Gibraltar for commercial purposes.
    Mr. Galbraith: One of the oil companies primarily concerned in these discussions has recently informed my Department that it is not in a position at present to join in the scheme for commercial sharing of the Admiralty oil bunkering facilities in Gibraltar. The situation arising from this development is being studied in conjunction with the Government of Gibraltar, the Colonial Office and other Departments concerned.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these discussions were going on three years ago? Will he tell us what has held them up all this time? Is it not a fact that the matter is important to Gibraltar to enable it to compete with the neighbouring Spanish ports?
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is incorrectly informed. The negotiations actually started on 18th January, 1956.
    Mr. Dodds: I said that discussions were taking place three years ago.
    Mr. Galbraith: Negotiations on a commercial basis were begun on 18th January, 1956. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the condition of the oil industry has recently been disturbed by the international situation, and that is what is causing the delay.

    H.M. Dockyard, Devonport
    Miss Vickersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of naval and civilian men and women employed in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, in 1956 and 1957; how many vacancies there are; and in which departments.
    Mr. Galbraith: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Miss Vickers: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that Devonport and Plymouth are areas which have unemployment over and above the average? Will he employ as many people as possible in the dockyard, anyhow during the next three months while petrol rationing exists?
    Mr. Galbraith: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will take into consideration the needs of all the Royal Dockyards and not merely the requirements in a certain district?
    Mr. Galbraith: Yes, Sir.
    Following is the information:
    The following numbers were employed on the dates shown:

    —

    Naval

    Civilians (Industrial and non-industrial)

    1st January, 1956.

    51

    19,391 (includes 563 women)

    1st January, 1957.

    49

    19,423 (includes 566 women)

    The number of vacancies is liable to variation from day to day—but on 18th January, 1957, the vacancies in the various dockyard departments totalled 195 as follows:

    Constructive Department

    …

    100

    Engineering Department

    …

    41

    Electrical Engineering Department

    …

    32

    Captain of Dockyard's Department

    …

    6

    Naval Stores Department

    …

    6

    Dockyard Police

    …

    10

    Miss Vickersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in the planning and construction of the new workshops in the Devonport Dockyard, what consideration has been given to placing them so that they could be used for other industries if they became redundant should there be a cut in the armament programme.
    Mr. Galbraith: Our plan for Devon-port Dockyard has been drawn up with the object of achieving maximum productivity in meeting the needs of the Royal Navy. Other considerations have been, and must be, subordinated to that primary aim.
    Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Several of the new workshops are now outside the present dockyard wall. Will my hon. Friend consider leaving them outside the wall so that if they become redundant to the dockyard they may be in a position to be used by other industries? Should they once come within the dockyard wall we may be told that it is impossible to use them in that manner.
    Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly consider that suggestion.

    United Kingdom Salvage Unit, Suez (Pay and Conditions)
    Miss Vickersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the conditions of service and pay of the men working with the United Kingdom Salvage Unit at Suez.
    Mr. Soames: The United Kingdom Salvage Unit consisted of Admiralty ships, manned by officers and men of the Royal Navy and by Admiralty civilian employees of the grades normally employed on such craft, and two chartered vessels.
    Naval personnel received naval pay and allowances, including hard lying money, and an allowance for work of an objectionable nature. Admiralty civilian crews received the pay and the allowances appropriate to them when on foreign service, plus a special allowance to compensate for the exceptional conditions associated with their employment. I have no information about the conditions of the crews of the chartered vessels.
    Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he agree with me that these men have done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances? When they return to this country, will he consider allowing them some extra pay and extra leave, in particular those who have not been on shore for nearly five months?
    Mr. Soames: These men have certainly done a most magnificent job. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

    Admiralty House, Malta
    Major Wallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements have been agreed with the Government of Malta regarding the future of Admiralty House.
    Mr. Galbraith: None, Sir. The matter is still under consideration.
    Major Wall: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects to arrive at a solution of this problem?
    Mr. Galbraith: No.

    Portsmouth Dockyard
    Dr. Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he still proposes to continue with the

    971
    large-scale expansion of Portsmouth Dockyard.
    Mr. Galbraith: Any idea of a large-scale expansion of the dockyard was abandoned several years ago. The city council was made aware in August last of the current plan, which involves the acquisition of only some nine acres of extra land.
    Dr. Bennett: Are there not already far too many acres outside the Dockyard for the number of ships they have to serve?
    Hon. Members: Answer.

    Eastern Mediterranean Fleets (Anglo-American Cooperation)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent British warships co-operate with United States warships in Eastern Mediterranean waters.
    Mr. Soames: Quite a lot.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the two fleets cooperated quite a lot during the recent trouble in Suez and whether at any time the British Fleet was threatened by the American Sixth Fleet, as stated by the latest Ministerial arrival at the War Office?
    Mr. Soames: During the Suez operations, of course, the two fleets had two different rôles. Within the limits prescribed by those circumstances relations were courteous and cordial.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was the consent of Mr. Dulles obtained in order to ensure cooperation between the American Fleet and the British Fleet in the Mediterranean?
    Mr. Soames: I think that that would probably be a question for the Foreign Secretary.
    Dr. Bennett: Which fleet represented "rock" and which represented "roll"?

    Buildings and Properties
    Dr. Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what buildings and properties in London his Department still holds or occupies, other than the Admiralty block in Whitehall; and what are the conditions of his tenure of Queen Anne's Mansions.
    Mr. Galbraith: I have arranged for the list of properties to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I understand that the Ministry of Works holds Queen Anne's Mansions on a 21-year lease dating from 1947.
    Dr. Bennett: Is this mighty place owned on behalf of the Admiralty entirely?
    Mr. Galbraith: Queen Anne's Mansions? I think it is, but I should like to confirm that.
    Following is the list of properties:—
    Property in London owned or leased and occupied by the Admiralty
    Furze House, 41, Queen's Gate Terrace, S.W.7.
    M/T Depots, Kidbrooke.
    Garages, St. Martin's Mews, W.C.2.
    Royal Victualling Yard, Deptford.
    Supply Reserve Depot, Deptford.
    Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (part of).
    21, Montpelier Row, Blackheath, S.E.3.
    St. Georges House, 195–203, Waterloo Road, S.E.1 (part of).
    P.L.A. Buildings, Tower Hill, E.C. (part of). 24–28, Charing Cross Road, W.C.2.
    R.N. College, Greenwich, S.E.3.
    R.N. Tactical School—Royal Military Academy, Woolwich (part of buildings of Academy).
    Greenwich Observatory.
    680, Commercial Road, E.I4.
    58, Sirdar Road, Notting Hill, W.11.
    47, Russell Square, W.C.1 (part of).
    City House, White City, Shepherds Bush (part of).
    41, The Mall, Ealing, W.5 (part of).
    In addition to the foregoing the Admiralty rents certain premises used as furnished quarters by naval ratings serving in the London Area.
    Property in London leased or owned by the Ministry of Works but occupied by the Admiralty
    Queen Anne's Mansions.
    Oxgate Lane, Cricklewood, N.W.2
    Rex House, Lower Regent Street (part of).
    82, Charing Cross Road, W.C.
    111, Penfold Street, N.W.8.
    Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street (part of).
    24, Kingsway (part of).
    Station Approach Buildings, Kidbrooke, S.E.3 (part of).
    304, 306–7, Elvedcn Place. Park Royal, N.W.10.
    20–21, Cornwall Terrace, N.W.1 (part of).
    Audit House, Victoria Embankment, E.C.4 (part of).
    43, York Terrace, N.W.1.
    Dr. Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will publish a list of the buildings and properties at present occupied or held by his

    973
    Department in Hampshire, other than those in the dockyard port of Portsmouth and the Borough of Gosport.
    Mr. Galbraith: Yes, Sir, the list will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dr. Bennett: Is it not a fact that there are a great many more stone frigates than steel ones in Hampshire?
    Mr. Galbraith: There are more buildings in Hampshire because Portsmouth is our principal naval port and naturally. therefore, the number of outlying buildings there is larger than it is in other parts of the country.
    Dr. Bennett: Is there not room for many of them to be now inside the Dockyard?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    LIST OF ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS ETC. IN THE COUNTY OF HAMPSHIRE OUTSIDE THE BOROUGHS OF PORTSMOUTH AND GOSPORT.
    BOURNEMOUTH COUNTY BOROUGH
    Bournemouth: West Howe Torpedo Establishment, Ringwood Road.
    DROXFORD RURAL DISTRICT
    Portsdown Hill: Admiralty Signal and Radar Establishment.
    Southwick: Navigation School (H.M.S. DRYAD), Southwick Park and New Barns, Southwick.
    Swanmorc: Salvage and Balloon Depot.
    EASTLEIGH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
    Chandlers Ford: Victualling Store Depot. Harnley Road.
    FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT
    Fareharn: Internal Combustion Engine Depot, Blackbrook Farm.
    Fareharn: Office Accommodation, Old Manor House, High Street.
    Fareham: R.N. Electrical Training School (H.M.S. COLLINGWOOD).
    Fareham: Victualling Store Depot, Roche Court.
    Lee-on-Solent: R.N. Air Station.
    Titchfield: Dockyard Storage Depot, Buildings 23 to 26, R.A.F. Station Titchfield.
    HAVANT AND WATERLOO URBAN DISTRICT
    Emsworth: Metallurgical Laboratory, Emsworth House.
    Havant: R.N. Mining Establishment, Westleigh House.
    Havant: Works Pound, Stabling Block and outbuilding Warblington Lodge.
    Purbrook: Radar and Plotting School, Fort Purbrook.
    Waterlooville: R.N. Store Depot, London Road.
    KINGSCLERE AND WHITCHURCH RURAL DISTRICT
    Kingsclere: C.I.N.O. Proofing Range.
    LYMINGTON MUNICIPAL BOROUGH
    Keyhaven: Beach Intelligence Research Station, Lymington Coastguard Station.
    NEW FOREST RURAL DISTRICT
    Hythe: Small Ships Commissioning Base (H.M.S. DILIGENCE).
    Marchwood: R.N. Armament Depot.
    March wood: Pontoon Store Depot.
    PETERSFIELD RURAL DISTRICT
    Petersfield: R.N. Signal Training Est. (H.M.S. MERCURY).
    ROMSEY AND STOCKBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT
    Dean Hill: R.N. Armament Depot.
    SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOROUGH
    Southampton: Office Accommodation, 8. Bugle Street.
    Southampton: Office Accommodation. 7 rooms, 2nd and 3rd Floors, 1A, Bugle Street.
    Southampton: Office Accommodation. 6 rooms, 2nd Floor, Prudential Buildings.
    Southampton: Office Accommodation. Various rooms in South Western Hotel.
    Southampton: R.N.V.R. Solent Division. Site and berthage facilities at No. 14 Berth Southampton Docks.
    Southampton: R.N. Store Depot, Provender Store and Yard at Empress Docks.
    Southampton: R.N. and R.M. Recruiting Office, 6, Orchard Place. Queens Park Road.
    Woolston: R.N. Store Depot.
    WINCHESTER MUNICIPAL BOROUGH
    Winchester: R.N. and R.M. Recruiting Office, Site near Winchester Station.
    WINCHESTER RURAL DISTRICT
    Botley: West End Victualling Store Depot. Winchester: W/T Station, Flowerdown.
    Worthy Down: Naval Air Electrical School (H.M.S. ARIEL).

    Admiralty Employees, Risley
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of employees who will be affected by the closure of the Admiralty depot at Risley.
    Mr. Galbraith: There are at present some 2,700 Admiralty employees at Risley. The tasks of this depot are due to be reduced gradually over the next eight years or so. Over this long period, normal wastage will make a large contribution to the necessary reduction in numbers, so that it is not possible at this stage to say how many of the staff will be individually affected.
    Mr. Boardman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consult the President of the Board of Trade with a view to bringing other industry into this area so as to offset the serious industrial loss which otherwise will occur?
    Mr. Galbraith: I will do that.
    Mr. Lee: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. This depot happens to be in my constituency, and at the beginning of this year I wrote to the then First Lord asking for information on this issue. On 11th January he wrote back to say that he would give an answer to my letter when he had assembled the information that he thought would be useful. What protection has an hon. Member when an answer is given in the House by another Minister and when a former Minister has promised another lion. Member an answer at the earliest possible time, and when that reply has not yet come?
    Mr. Boardman: Further to that point of order, I fancy that my hon. Friend is raising this matter in no way critical of me. It so happens that I supply the labour and he draws the rates.
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Member. Sometimes Ministers do not act quite up to the expectations of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have seen that happen many a time in the past twenty-five years. I can only advise the hon. Member to keep on trying.
    Mr. Galbraith: I will look into that matter to see if I can do anything.

    National Service Men
    Mr. Liptonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many National Service men are now serving with the Royal Navy; and how many of them reported for duty in the last call-up.
    Mr. Soames: About 10,100 National Service men were serving in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines on 1st January, 1957. Few, if any, of the men from the last registration on 17th November were called up by then. During the last three months of 1956 approximately 1,000 men from earlier registrations were called up for full-time service in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that he has rather wrapped up the figures to make them incomprehensible? Has not the stage now been reached when the solemn powers of calling up people for the Navy under the National Service Act should be abandoned in view of the tiny handful of men who are now being asked to report for duty out of the present numbers that are called up?
    Mr. Soames: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not understand what I thought were comparatively simple figures. The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines need 10,000 National Service men, which involves a call-up of 1,200 a quarter, and in the last quarter of last year about 1,000 men were called up.

    Suez Canal (Clearance)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) to what extent clearance of the Suez Canal has been further delayed by Egyptian obstruction;
    (2) how many salvage ships were assembled by the Admiralty in the Suez Canal area; and how many have been used under the United Nations in clearing the Canal.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will estimate the extent of the delay in clearing the Suez Canal of serious obstruction to navigation attributable to the failure of the United Nations Organisation to make the fullest use of the Anglo-French Salvage Fleet.
    Mr. Soames: By mid-December, the Anglo-French Salvage Fleet at Port Said consisted of 19 ships, and another 21 were being held in readiness to go to Port Said or Suez. To the best of our knowledge, the United Nations have assembled 17 salvage ships. None of these figures includes tugs.
    If the Anglo-French Salvage Fleet had been allowed to proceed with the clearance beyond El Cap from November onwards, the Canal would probably have been cleared for shipping by the middle of this month, certainly by the end of this week.
    Our Salvage Fleet has, however, cleared two channels for the largest shipping at Port Said with remarkable speed and

    977
    efficiency in the face of considerable difficulties. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join me in paying a tribute to the magnificent efforts of our salvage forces.
    Captain Pilkington: Would my hon. Friend agree that all these facts show how much better it would have been for the whole world if the United Nations and the United States had supported this country and France not only in stopping the war but also in securing a guaranteed settlement for the Canal? Can he say in present circumstances whether there are hopeful prospects of getting the Canal open soon?
    Mr. Soames: As far as we know, there are no technical reasons why General Wheeler's timetable for getting a channel clear through the whole length of the Canal by the end of March should not be adhered to.
    Mr. Bottomley: Whilst joining in the tributes to the men engaged in the salvage service and wishing them all well, may I ask whether the Minister is not aware that, due to the hostility created in the area, the probability is that British salvage ships could not have been used without hostilities bringing them to a stop ultimately and, therefore, his forecast would have been wrong?
    Mr. Soames: We have no evidence to show that.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Quite apart from the difference of opinion on our intervention in Egypt, does not a heavy responsibility rest on those at the United Nations who have refused to make the fullest use of this splendid fleet in the interests of international shipping?
    Mr. Soames: Certainly it is a great pity that our ships have not been used, because the Canal would have been cleared earlier.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Nuclear Power Propulsion
    Major Wallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he will make a statement regarding the progress of atomic propulsion for merchant vessels;
    (2) whether he will make a statement about the progress of the construction of a British atomic-powered submarine.
    Mr. Galbraith: As was stated in First Lord's Explanatory Statement on Navy Estimates last year (Command 9697), scientists and naval officers serving at the Atomic Energy Establishment at Harwell have for some years been collecting the knowledge necessary for the application of nuclear power to marine propulsion.
    Detailed work on the design of a prototype submarine nuclear powered installation, which is shore based, is now well advanced, and some orders for the prototype machinery have been placed. It is planned to construct a basically similar plant for installation and extensive trials in a sea-going submarine. Experimental work on shielding problems is also proceeding at Harwell.
    The wider question for further application of nuclear power to ships for both the Royal and Merchant Navies is being carefully studied, and encouraging progress has been made with feasibility studies.
    The Admiralty, which has in the past successfully pioneered other forms of ship propulsion, is fully alive to the commercial opportunities opened by these new developments.
    Major Wall: While thanking my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply, may I ask him whether, if the American Navy is already operating nuclear powered submarines which can use guided missiles, he will agree that it seems probable that the atomic powered submarine, as it is developed, may attain a submerged speed which may enable it to outstrip all surface vessels and that, in view of this, it may supplant all our normal types of warship? Will he, therefore, press ahead as hard as possible to ensure that we have one of these submarines operating as soon as possible?
    Mr. Galbraith: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better table another Question about the American submarines. As I stated, we are pressing ahead as hard as we can with our own nuclear propulsion research.
    Mr. Bottomley: While I appreciate that all the research work which is being carried out at Harwell is towards a common objective, can the hon. Gentleman assure us that in regard to research in respect of merchant shipping and research in respect of ships for the Royal Navy there is the fullest co-operation in order to obtain the best results?
    Mr. Galbraith: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance.
    Commander Maitland: Has there been any co-operation with the United States of America in regard to either of these projects?
    Mr. Galbraith: I should like notice of that question.

    Output and Steel Supplies
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has considered the representations of shipbuilders that the disappointing launch output of 1956 was due to a shortage of materials; that the whole tempo of production would be increased by an adequate supply of steel coming into the yards in proper sequence; and what steps he proposes taking to meet the needs of the ship. builders.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am aware from discussions which my right hon. and noble Friend's predecessor had with the shipbuilding industry that there is capacity for greater output given more steel. I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave last week to Questions put down by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and others and to the Answer I am giving today to questions by the hon. Members for Sunderland, South and Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
    Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister realise that the total shipbuilding orders in hand, the new orders for 1957, and the production of steel, are better than they have been for a long while? Will he not realise that the fault lies with his Department in that it is failing to ensure that steel is delivered to the yards at the proper time and in proper sequence, and that, consequently, it contributed towards the lower production last year?
    Mr. Galbraith: I cannot for one moment accept that it is the fault of my Department.
    Mr. Rankin: It is.
    Mr. Galbraith: I cannot accept that. We are doing everything we can to increase the amount of steel which is going to the shipyards. We have been doing that. and shall continue to do it.
    Mr. P. Williams: As my hon. Friend's Department has been trying to do this for five or ten years, what signs are there of any success being achieved in the next five or ten years?
    Mr. Galbraith: I think my hon. Friend will find that this year there will be improvements compared with last year.
    Mr. Willey: While I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), is the Minister aware that steel supplies improve every time we raise the subject in the House, and that what we want is a continuation of the improved supplies and not sporadic improvement followed by relaxation?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am very well aware of the problem. As I have said, the Admiralty has already been doing, and is continuing to do, everything it possibly can to get the steel industry to supply more steel for the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friends with a view to bringing before the House, probably in reply to a sponsored Question, an answer about the allocation of steel to the shipbuilding industry? We really cannot go on year after year having read out official briefs which always give the same reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position is now complicated because the tankers now proposed to be built are of increased tonnage, and, therefore, the demand for steel plate is increased?
    Mr. Galbraith: Yes, sir.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that deliveries are likely to be greatly accelerated now that the steel industry has got rid of the bugbear of nationalisation?
    Later—
    Mr. Rankin: I beg to give notice, having had second thoughts, that I shall raise on the Adjournment the matters pertaining to my Question.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the discussions with the shipyard industries about steel supplies have now been completed; and if he will make a further statement.
    Mr. Galbraith: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave on 23rd January to Questions put down by the hon. Member and other hon. Members, but I would refer him to the reply given by the Paymaster-General on Monday to a Question put down by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).
    Mr. Wiley: Can the Civil Lord say how far the resort to physical controls has been successful and whether that is helping? Can he also assure the House that this year the British shipbuilding industry will reach an output of 1¾ million tons?
    Mr. Nabarro: Very woolly, Willey; very woolly.
    Mr. Galbraith: As I said in reply to the Question last week, the discussions initiated as a result of the meetings between the First Lord and the President of the Board of Trade are still in progress.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the fact that the Admiralty assume the responsibility for this but have no powers in the matter at all, and that if the steelmasters decide that they do not intend to supply the shipyards with steel there is no power on earth, in the Admiralty or outside, to compel them to do so?
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Unless we renationalise steel.
    Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman say how far the system of the licensing of exports is proving successful in helping the shipbuilding industry? Or does he not know?
    Mr. Callaghan: He does not know.
    Mr. Galbraith: There has been a reduction in exports of 50,000 tons, and that is obviously helping.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps he has recently taken to improve the delivery of steel to shipyards in correct sequence.
    Mr. Galbraith: Deliveries in better sequence would be made easier by ample supplies, and my right hon. and noble Friend is doing his best to secure them.
    Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to ship repair work, which makes comparatively little
    982
    demand on steel, in view of the allegations which are being made that British ships are going to continental ports to be repaired there with British steel?
    Mr. Galbraith: I understand that, so far as the repair of the tanker fleet is concerned, the position is quite satisfactory.
    Mr. Callaghan: As I could not get an answer to my last supplementary question, may I now ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us, if the powers of oral persuasion fail, what other recourse he has, what remedies he has, to ensure that the shipyards get the steel they want?
    Mr. Galbraith: I think it a good idea to wait and see what the powers are.
    Sir R. Jennings: Will my hon. Friend continue to co-operate with the steel mills and the shipbuilding industry of this country to keep the supplies of steel plates going to the shipyards, which is the most important thing we all in this House want?
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the practical difficulties which make it impossible to eliminate altogether incorrect sequence of deliveries of steel to the shipyards.
    Mr. Galbraith: The steel makers find difficulty in aligning the programme of their rolling mills with the requirements of individual customers. This difficulty is made worse in times of general shortage like the present, but it should be reduced to very small proportions once steel for the shipyards is in ample supply.
    Mr. P. Williams: Whilst recognising the difficulties of the makers of the steel, and whilst recognising the need, of which my hon. Friend spoke just now, to increase the production of steel as much as possible, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he would not agree that one of the difficulties over long-range planning in the steel mills is the threat of nationalisation?
    Mr. H. Hynd: What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by talking about "this time of shortage"? Is there not a record production of steel?
    Mr. Galbraith: I understand that in spite of the record production demand is still greater than supply.
    Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he continues to answer Questions about the allocation of steel when it is assumed he has no powers?
    Mr. Callaghan: He has no powers.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Dartford
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Postmaster-General how many applicants for telephones linked to the Dartford Exchange have yet to be provided with a service; and how long he anticipates it will be before this list can be cleared.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): Four hundred and eighty-two.
    New cables are being provided and the exchange equipment is being extended to use the full capacity of the building. Most of the present applicants will be given service this year. But there is a steady new demand, so I cannot say when the waiting list will finally be cleared. The building needs to be extended, and this is planned to start next June.

    Argentina and Brazil Services
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has made to the telephone companies operating radio-telephone circuits with Argentina and Brazil with a view to improving the telephone service with these countries and with what result.
    Mr. Marples: Repeated proposals have been made to the telephone companies for longer services at more convenient times of the day. So far the companies have unfortunately not been able to arrange this, because their equipment has to be used for other services also. Further negotiations on possible measures to meet the need for improvement are now going on.
    Mr. Davies: Whilst appreciating that the Postmaster-General has been taking steps to improve these services, does he fully appreciate at what inconvenient hours they are available, at great inconvenience to a large number of business men?
    Mr. Marples: I realise that, Sir. although there have been no complaints
    984
    from the Government Departments concerned—that is, the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office—we have asked the companies for two hours' longer service to both Argentina and Brazil. They have offered twenty-five minutes to Brazil only. We are pressing for more, and I am hoping to see them.
    Mr. Hobson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time that serious consideration was given to the laying of a submarine cable in the same way as has been done between New York and Great Britain and between Plymouth and South Africa in view of the developing traffic?
    Mr. Marples: I will look into that, but there are negotiations going on now, both with the United States and Canada, in connection with the laying of further trans-oceanic submarine cables.

  POST OFFICE

    Unperforated Stamps (Sale)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Postmaster-General if in view of the circumstances surrounding the recent sale of 240 unperforated 2d. stamps in the Post Office at Dartford, he will now arrange to issue a limited but undisclosed number of further unperforated sheets of the same denomination.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Postmaster-General if he will have printed a sufficient number of sheets of unperforated 2d. stamps to reduce to a reasonable level the value to collectors of the sheet issued recently by a London Post Office.
    Mr. Marples: The answer is, "No, Sir."
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Postmaster-General aware that in 1934, in somewhat similar circumstances, the American Postmaster General adopted this expedient and made a very handsome revenue for the Post Office as a result?
    Mr. Marples: I went carefully into the precedent set by Mr. Farley, the United States Postmaster General. I will not comment upon it, but I should like to read what I found in "The United States

    985
    Postage Stamps of the Twentieth Century," Volume IV, which states:
    "Postmaster General Farley, who handed about one million dollars' worth of rare postage stamps to his friends and thereby made enemies of all other stamps collectors, today tried to square himself with all concerned. Mr. Farley paid the Government 3 cents. each for his gift stamps, but they became worth 2,500 dollars a piece to collectors because of their scarcity, and almost caused a Congressional investigation."
    I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to follow the same method as Mr. Farley.
    Mr. Thomson: Whilst this was a particularly shabby and objectionable case, is the Postmaster-General aware that it is by no means an isolated instance? There are twelve unperforated stamps of the last reign in existence and stamp collectors all over the world are beginning to doubt the genuineness of British stamps. Would he not look into the matter further to see whether he can restore the reputation of British stamps in the philatelic world?
    Mr. Marples: I disagree. I think that this is an isolated instance. I have been into the flatter very carefully, and I think that the reputation of British stamps in the world is pretty high.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the precedent set by the Minister, will we also be permitted to read from books at Question Time?
    Mr. Speaker: It has always been permitted, within limits, to read quotations.
    Mr. Jeger: Has the Postmaster-General not heard of the Prime Minister's call for greater production, and will he not answer the call?
    Mr. Marples: I think the Prime Minister was referring to other matters where there will be, of course, greater production.
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Postmaster-General at the time at which the sheet of imperforate 2d. stamps recently sold at Dartford escaped perforation, how many other similar sheets also escaped perforation.
    Mr. Marples: None so far as is known.
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to see that the events leading recently to the sale of imperforate stamps
    986
    from the Dartford Post Office do not recur.
    Mr. Marples: Mistakes which are due to human failures cannot be entirely avoided, but the checking arrangements at the printing works have been further strengthened and the staff at local post offices reminded of the importance of withdrawing any imperfect stamps.
    Mr. Irving: Would the Postmaster-General agree that it is not in the public interest that individuals should make huge gains in this way? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?" I Would he examine the law to see whether the title of the gentleman concerned is a good one? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the action of his Department contributed in some way to the intolerable burden of Press pressure on this 16-year-old girl by placing her under a pledge of secrecy, under which she behaved very well indeed?
    Mr. Marples: The question of the ownership of the stamps would have to be decided in a court of law, and it is thought inadvisable to pursue that course. Contractual responsibility rests with the stamp printers to see that only perfect stamps and material are supplied to the Post Office. The best that the Post Office can do is to overhaul the inspection arrangements to ensure that this does not happen again.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend not take this too heavily? Does he not agree that this would be a drab and dreary world if these romantic things did not happen occasionally?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman decline the request to encourage these romantic things happening inside the Post Office? In view of the fact that this is the only occasion on which it has happened in 25 years, does he not agree that it reflects great credit on the Post Office?
    Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. There has been a question about the girl. She has been reprimanded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"1—but the profit that she has made she has handed to charity. She was reprimanded because she disobeyed Post Office instructions.
    Hon. Members: A scapegoat.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Does not the Postmaster-General think that we are making very heavy weather of this matter?
    Mr. Marples: I agree, Sir. In my view this is an isolated incident, and the sooner it is forgotten the better.

    Under-Paid Airmail Letters
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Postmaster-General if he will make arrangements for airmail letters insufficiently prepaid with the sender's name on the envelope to be returned to the sender rather than sent by ordinary mail to their destination.
    Mr. Marples: I do not think the public would welcome the arrangement suggested. At present comparatively few under-paid airmail letters with the sender's name and address on the envelope are sent on by surface route. The great majority of such letters are already forwarded by air: the Post Office makes up the postage and asks the sender to refund the money.
    Mr. Harrison: Whilst thanking the Postmaster-General for that reply, may I ask whether he can have instructions sent round to post offices that when they send these letters by ordinary mail they will advise the sender? Is he aware that I know of cases where manufacturers have lost export orders through the mistake of their clerical staff in not putting the right amount of postage on the envelopes?
    Mr. Marples: That would probably mean an addition to manpower which might not be justified, but I will look into the matter. If at least 75 per cent. of the airmail fee, that is, the difference between surface and airmail postage, is paid the letter is sent by airmail.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    R.A.A.F. Squadrons (Disbandment)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air why it was not possible to convert flights of the Royal Auxiliary
    988
    Air Force fighter squadrons into reserve flights attached to regular fighter squadrons, and thus make use of the enthusiasm and efficiency of these Auxiliary units.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration he has given to the proposal that members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force should be integrated with regular fighter squadrons and that Auxiliary pilots should do their week-end training on regular squadron aircraft; if he is aware that economies could by this means still be effected whilst retaining the skill and enthusiasm of most of the members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): For the reasons which I gave last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert), the Government have decided, with the greatest possible regret, that it is necessary to disband all squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force except twenty Fighter Control Units and one Radar Reporting Unit.
    In many cases it has been possible to offer Auxiliary officers and airmen opportunities of further service on the ground, either in those Fighter Control Units which are being retained or in Reserve flights at R.A.F. stations near their homes. I am glad to say that the indications are that many of them will continue to serve in this way.
    Had it been possible I should, of course, have welcomed a scheme under which Auxiliary pilots and ground personnel could have been associated as squadrons or flights with regular fighter squadrons. But examination has shown that any such scheme would be very costly and it would involve a heavy commitment in regular manpower. Certain other suggestions have been put to me but they are all unacceptable for either operational, administrative or financial reasons. I am therefore going ahead with the present decision to retain the services of Auxiliary officers and airmen only where we can accept them for specific vacancies in the war establishment.
    I should like to make it clear that the decision in no way reflects on the enthusiasm or flying ability of Auxiliary

    989
    pilots. They could only be retained however by standing down fully trained regular pilots.
    Air Commodore Harvey: is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel sorry for him, as a former Auxiliary pilot, at having to implement this unfortunate decision? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, whether the decision is right or wrong, we feel that the case has been dealt with in a most ham-handed way, and that by throwing away this valuable asset of tremendous voluntary effort Britain may be a great loser? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will not close the door until further propositions are put to him which may cost the Government very little money indeed?
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir. I think it would be most unfair to these people to offer them any hope of reprieve. This morning I have received the Advisory Committee of the Territorial and Air Forces Association and also the Air League of the British Empire. They put forward several alternative schemes, and I think I was able to convince them that, although some of them were attractive, none is, in fact, possible.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State for Air aware that there are really valuable assets in the skill and enthusiasm of these volunteers, and that it does appear as if they have been thrown away without great consideration? Surely the Government can look at this again to see if some system cannot be devised to make use of the skill of these volunteers, and thus make real, instead of superficial, economies?
    Mr. Ward: This is not a decision which has been taken in a hurry. It has been under consideration for a very long time, and every aspect of it has been carefully considered. The voluntary spirit will remain. The door is still open to it in the remaining Fighter Control Units and the R.R.U.s, and also in the reserve flights of the Volunteer Reserve. I am sure that many auxiliaries will show their voluntary spirit by joining those units.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was in some ways an insulting gesture to these men to offer them a job on the ground in the way that was done? Secondly, can the right hon.
    990
    Gentleman give some figures as to the amount of extra regular personnel that would be used if the idea of a reserve flight was taken up, because no satisfactory figures have been given. Thirdly, if it is economies the Government are after, would it not have been much better to have looked at the entire question of the need for a fighter command and then to have settled the position of the Auxiliary squadrons in the context of that decision?
    Mr. Ward: I cannot, without notice, give the exact number that would be required, but I can say that in order to keep the airfields open at weekends for Auxiliary flying it would be necessary to bring each one up to the establishment of a master diversion airfield, thereby having to duplicate flying control, ambulance, fire service, cooks and everything else, and it would be a very costly business indeed.

    Airfield, Maldive Islands
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Air the estimated cost of the proposed reconstruction of the wartime airfield in the Maldive Islands and of the land to be used for the erection of aerials on Hittadu Island and, annually, of the maintenance of British forces on the islands.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to reactivate the air base in the Maldive Islands; and what is the estimated cost of such reactivation.
    Mr. Ward: The airfield is to be rebuilt for use as a Royal Air Force staging post. It would be contrary to established Government practice to disclose the estimated cost of reconstruction. The rent for the land, including that for the radio station, will be £2,000 a year. The annual cost of manning the staging post will depend upon the establishment, but is likely to be of the order of £100,000.
    Mr. Brockway: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how long this agreement will last, and whether, in the consideration of defence cuts, the question of establishing airfields for defence purposes is being considered to save us from going through what has happened in Cyprus and, it may be, in Aden?
    Mr. Ward: This is not, strictly speaking, for a defence purpose. It is a staging

    991
    post which will, of course, be used by both military and civil aircraft, and it will be extremely valuable to us in staging either to Australia or the Far East.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister agree that, to a certain degree at any rate, the reactivation of this post is part of the price we are having to pay for the Suez fiasco?
    Mr. Ward: No, I disagree entirely. This was under consideration long before the Suez affair blew up.

    National Service Men
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air how many National Service men were trained as aircrew in the Royal Air Force last year; and how many are undergoing training at the present time.
    Mr. Ward: The numbers of National Service aircrew who successfully completed training to wings standard in 1956 were 184 pilots and one navigator. The numbers under training at 1st January, 1957, were 296 pilots and 109 navigators.
    Air Commodore Harvey: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile these figures with the decision to close down the Auxiliary Air Force squadrons? Surely, the Auxiliary pilots are practically in the front line of defence, whereas the National Service man at the completion of his service is almost a lost asset. Many of us are not happy concerning the future if training is to continue for National Service men while the Auxiliary squadrons are to be disbanded.
    Mr. Ward: The figures I have given are apt to be slightly misleading owing to the form of the Question. The first figures relate to the output for 1956 and the second figures to the input, not only for 1956, but for 1957 also. What has happened is that in October we reduced the annual quota for pilots from 300 to 150 a year.
    Mr. de Freitas: What will happen to these National Service pilots after they leave the Service if there are no Auxiliary squadrons? What will they do?
    Mr. Ward: They will not be able to fly, I quite agree, but I hope that many of them will join the remaining units and play their part on the ground.

  WEATHER CONDITIONS (SUNSPOT ACTIVITY)
  Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Air what advice he has received from his meteorological advisers as to the extent to which weather conditions in this country are indirectly attributable to sunspot activity; and whether, having regard to the more intense sunspot activity expected in 1957, he expects the summer in 1957 to be better or worse than in 1956.
  Mr. Ward: Despite work in this country and elsewhere, it has not been possible to establish any direct or indirect relationship between sunspot activity and the weather in this country. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not generally agreed that there is an indirect connection between sunspot activity and the weather, and would my right hon. Friend cause further inquiries to be made through his officers, because, if such a connection could be established, would it not be very useful in the long-range forecasting of weather conditions?
  Mr. Ward: I quite agree. If it could be established, it would. Attempts have been made over many years to establish some relationship between sunspots and the weather, but so far, unfortunately, none of these experiments has shown any clear relationship between them.

  ROADS

    London—Oxford Road (Land)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what acreage of land is contained in between the carriageways of the new London—Oxford road just south of Oxford; and what is the distance between the carriageways at the widest point.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): About 12½ acres. In order to use the existing carriageway as much as possible, the width of the central reserve had to be increased from 26 ft. to 125 ft. at a few points.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, broadly speaking, this is a serious wastage of agricultural land? In the case of future long-distance roads like this, will he ensure that there is the minimum of wastage? Even in Germany, where the autobahn is probably the most elaborate system of its kind in the world, there is only 11 ft. between the two carriageways.
    Mr. Watkinson: I take the point made by my hon. Friend. In building new roads as quickly as possible, however, where we can use the existing carriageway for one part of the dual carriageway we can make much quicker progress.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend look at the second point, that even the second figure he mentioned, which is normal, is probably excessively wide, because it can be done with much less use of land?

    Civil Airports (Screens)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps have been taken to create a visual barrier between traffic on roads and civil airports.
    Mr. Watkinson: Screens have been erected at a few of the airports managed by my Department where car parking or sightseers on adjacent roads have caused congestion or risk of accident on these roads. If my hon. Friend will let me know whether he has any particular aerodrome in mind. I shall be glad to make inquiries.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: May I tell my right hon. Friend that I have no such particular case in mind, but that as a general principle I wish to draw his attention to the fact that it can be dangerous and has proved dangerous on many occasions?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree and am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the number of sightseers now being attracted to all aerodromes is such that more care has to be exercised.

    Clayton Road, A.519, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to be in a position to approve
    994
    the scheme for widening Clayton Road, A.519, in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid I cannot say at the moment. As the hon. Member is aware, I am not able in present circumstances to give priority to the scheme for widening this road.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Newcastle Council continues to regard this as a very urgent necessity owing to the unfortunate fact that accidents continue to occur on this road? Will he, therefore, continue to bear this matter in mind?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will do my best to give it as favourable consideration as I can, but I have said that I am afraid I cannot fit it in at the moment.

    Silverdale-Scot Hay Road (Repairs)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recommendation he has made to the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the application for loan sanction by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council for the repair of the road from Silverdale via Crackley Gates to Scot Hay.
    Mr. Watkinson: Loan sanction was issued to the borough council on 19th December.

  TRANSPORT

    Staggered Working Hours
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action has been taken in regard to the staggering of hours of work to relieve traffic congestion since the introduction of petrol rationing.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Committee for the Staggering of Working Hours in Central London has written to 2,000 larger employers asking for information about starting and finishing times of work and numbers of staff involved, and is now working out detailed plans based on the replies. I should like to thank some 30 firms, employing 6,000 staff, which have answered the appeal I made last November by adopting staggered hours in advance of action by the Committee.
    Outside Central London the London Transport Executive and the South Eastern Regional Board for Industry

    995
    have approached industrial employers to seek further support for staggered hours and have received a satisfactory response.
    As a result of the discussion forecast by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Education in his reply of 13th December, the London Transport Executive is considering further with individual education authorities possible adjustments in school hours and transport services.
    Mr. Davies: While I appreciate that some action is now being taken in this regard, does the Minister not consider that what has taken place so far, in the light of the present emergency, is quite inadequate? Can he not bring greater pressure to bear upon the firms and undertakings concerned to act more speedily in this matter? Does he not regret that he did not take any action earlier, in view of the fact that last July he stated that he had the intention of appointing the committee but did not appoint it until November, and only now some action is being taken?
    Mr. Watkinson: I would not regard the results as inadequate, because, as I know the hon. Gentleman knows, London Transport, for example, has been under much heavier pressure and, on the whole, it has carried its passengers extremely well and without great dislocation. I am, however, grateful to anybody who reminds me that we ought to do more about staggering hours.
    Mrs. Jeger: Can the Minister suggest to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government that this task would be helped if he would stop sanctioning the building of any more offices in Central London, where already far larger numbers of people are employed than before the war?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am sure my right hon. Friend will take account of what the hon. Lady says.

  B.B.C. (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister to what extent the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is to assume the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply. Ministerial responsibility in respect of the British Broadcasting Corporation is unaltered.
  Mr. Thomson: In view of the various suspicions which have been aroused about the appointment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, can the Lord Privy Seal give a categorical undertaking that his right hon. Friend will in no way be used to bring Governmental pressure to bear on the B.B.C. either in respect of its home services or in relation to its overseas services?
  Mr. Butler: The first point I would make is that there is no change in the statutory responsibilities of the Postmaster-General in relation to both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. under the Charter and Licence and the Independent Television Act, respectively. In answer to the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible for co-ordinating information services as a whole and there is no question of his adopting any attitude such as the hon. Member suggests. He is simply there to assist to the best of his ability in the task allotted to him.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it clear from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have no authority whatsoever to intervene in regard to broadcasting questions?
  Mr. Butler: I do not know what is meant by the word "intervene". If my right hon. Friend is to co-ordinate information services as a whole, to say that he will take no part in broadcasting would be quite untrue. Of course, he will take an interest in broadcasting—
  Mr. Hamilton: He always does.
  Mr. Butler: —but he will not take the place of the Postmaster-General in his statutory responsibilities. He will take an interest in Government publicity services generally.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the Chancellor of the Duchy will form a new association or have a new relationship with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I think he will form a very helpful link with them.
  Mr. Ross: The missing link.
  Mr. Wade: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Is the Chancellor of the Duchy concerned with co-ordinating information at home as well as overseas? As far as overseas information is concerned, is it his duty merely to co-ordinate factual statements or is he concerned with the presentation of views and news, which may be a matter of very high Government policy and may have very far-reaching consequences?
  Mr. Butler: I ascertained this before answering the Question so as to be quite clear. Overseas Ministers will remain responsible for prescribing the services to be broadcast in the B.B.C. external services, but not, of course, for the content of the broadcasts. All that my right hon. Friend will do is to supply the necessary co-ordination as between home matters and foreign matters, which very often overlap for the very good reason that home matters are frequently referred to in foreign broadcasts.
  Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was to be a link. Are there, then, to be two links between the B.B.C. and the Government, one through the Postmaster-General and the other through the Chancellor? If so, what is the division of function between the two?
  Mr. Butler: All the statutory functions will be performed by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, and there will be nothing—I do not doubt that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will wish to know this—to alter the statutory relationship of the Postmaster-General to these authorities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will perform duties not dissimilar to those previously performed by Ministers both in the last Government and in the Government before it, and in the Labour Government, namely, for information services generally. I remember that there was an arrangement under the Labour Government which seemed to work perfectly well. My right hon. Friend is carrying on broadly on the same lines.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the confusion that has arisen after the right hon. Gentleman's replies last week and this week, will he undertake to issue a very
  998
  full statement stating precisely the functions and powers of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I will not absolutely refuse to consider the request made by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, because this is a matter into which the greatest clarity should be brought. I am certain that the activities of my right hon. Friend will redound to the credit of Her Majesty's Government and their great success.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  Mr. Doughty: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th February, I shall call attention to the Council of Europe and Western European Union, and move a Resolution.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. I saw about five slips of paper being thrown into the box without being mixed up, Mr. Speaker. The odds are that the hon. Members putting them in last will have their slips chosen.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is very observant. I did not observe it. At one time, it used to be said in the Army, "Shake the bag."

  Water Supplies (Developing Industries)
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th February, I shall call attention to the urgent need to provide adequate water supplies for developing industries, and move a Resolution.
  Expanding Commonwealth
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th February, I shall call attention to the need for an expanding Commonwealth. and move a Resolution.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS)
3.33 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the thermal insulation of industrial buildings; and for purposes connected therewith.
It will not be disputed in any part of the House that the national fuel and power position in present circumstances gives rise to grave apprehension. The fact is that our coal production has been almost static during the last five years, and our oil supplies are now precarious, notably our supplies of fuel oil for industry. Energy demand is rising by 10 per cent. per annum, arithmetical progression, and doubling every decade. Finally, though much more roseate hopes have been held out in certain quarters, I think that even if we double our atomic programme for energy purposes it is unlikely that by 1965 we shall be able to supply more than about 10 per cent. of our total energy needs from nuclear sources.
That is a situation which must surely give rise to grave apprehension in every quarter of the House. Moreover, there is no division of opinion that a prosperous national economy most largely depends upon a progressive expansion of productive industry in this country, year by year. In view of the current and prospective fuel and power situation, to which reference has been made on many occasions in the past, it is of supreme importance that our resources of fuel and power must be used and employed with the utmost efficiency. That is not the case in industry today.
I was responsible, in concert with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, for initiating legislation two years ago for clean air, essentially because it was a policy for fuel efficiency. What I am seeking today is exactly complementary to that clean air policy. It is concerned with industrial buildings and the retention of heat in them; heat which has been generated as a result of raising steam for productive, processing and heating purposes within the building. Many millions of tons of coal and fuel
1000
oil are used annually in British industry, for heating purposes. An uninsulated building loses through leakages anything up to 50 per cent. of all the heat that is fed into it for heating purposes.
It follows, therefore, that there is a very grave wastage of our fuel and power resources. I do not wish to be dogmatic about the extent of the wastage. In certain circumstances, owing to the structure of the building, the age of the building, the geography or situation of the building, it may be only a 20 per cent. wastage, but in other circumstances it can be as high as 50 per cent.
What I am seeking to establish this afternoon, in what must be necessarily a very short survey of the position, is that here is a grave wastage of fuel, a wastage which ought to be remedied by Her Majesty's Government, supported by the combined efforts of all hon. Members. To put this matter in its correct perspective, I might add that in the last calendar year, 1956, we put up a record acreage of new industrial buildings. It amounted to no less than 41 million square feet. In the previous year, 1955, we put up 41 million square feet of new industrial buildings, and in the six years between 1951 and 1956, inclusive, we erected 215 million square feet of new industrial buildings.
The significant factor is that out of that 215 million square feet of new industrial buildings, I am advised that no more than 10 per cent. were thermally insulated against heat loss. Thus, 90 per cent. of the buildings were uninsulated and in the whole such 90 per cent., a vast acreage of industrial buildings, we dissipated valuable supplies of fuel and power, amounting to between 25 and 50 per cent. of the fuel consumed for heating purposes.
The present Conservative Government, the previous Conservative Government, the last Socialist Government and the Socialist Government of 1945–50 all gave recognition to this fact in various statements. I will quote just three examples. In the Finance Act, 1956, it is significant that investment allowances were largely withdrawn but were retained on certain classes of fuel efficiency equipment for industry. Most significant of all, under one subsection, investment allowances were retained for the cost of insulating industrial buildings.

1001
As a second example, Her Majesty's Government gives special loans to industry for fuel efficiency plant and equipment and included in that is the cost of insulating buildings. The third example is that the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, which is a quasi-Government body responsible for the promotion of fuel efficiency in industry, has stated that up to 6 million tons of coal equivalent a year are lost as a result of our failure to insulate thermally our industrial buildings.
Perhaps the imagination boggles at those figures. I will put them into a form which every hon. Member will understand. If one takes the output of a coal miner as being 300 tons per annum, a loss of 6 million tons of coal represents the productive effort of 20,000 miners a year. That productive effort is being dissipated by our failure to pay attention to this simple process of insulating thermally our industrial buildings, which can be carried out almost entirely with indigenous materials, or the products of British industry made from materials produced entirely in this country.
In this preliminary venture, I think that I have said enough this afternoon to demonstrate to the House that this is a worthwhile proposition. The Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce is one which, if the House agrees to the Motion, will be sponsored by six Socialist Members and six Tory Members. The only exclusion is the Liberal Party, and I hope that at a later date Liberal Members will join me in this proposition.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Stokes, Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Ellis Smith, Major Tufton Beamish, Mr. Hobson, Sir Albert Braithwaite, Mr. Philips Price, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Russell and Mr. George Darling.

THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS)
Bill to make provision for the thermal insulation of industrial buildings; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL

    Clause 1.—(CASES WHERE CUSTOMS DUTIES MAY BE IMPOSED.)
    3.43 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, after "interest", to insert:
    "or would assist the economy of any member of the British Commonwealth of Nations".
    Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Can you tell me why the Amendment in my name, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "that" to "affecting" in line 19 and to insert:
    "a subsidy has been given".
    has not been called?
    The Chairman: It is out of order, because it goes beyond the Money Resolution.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The effect of my Amendment would be to make explicit what may be implicit in the Bill, namely, a reference to Commonwealth exporters to this country and our intention to extend to them the same sort of protection that we would extend to our own traders and producers. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will say that this is already in the Bill by implication, but it is important, especially in respect of Commonwealth countries, to write this into the Bill and make it clear. It is certainly explicitly included in Article VI, paragraph (6, b) of G.A.T.T., which says that it is proper for us to protect exporters from third countries whose exports to us might be affected by dumping in our own market by some other country.
    The reason why it is important to make this provision explicit and not merely to leave it implicit is that we should first make it quite clear that we want to encourage Commonwealth trade in every way, including the small ways made possible by the Bill and, secondly, that it is our clear and deliberate intention to extend to Commonwealth producers

    1003
    the various provisions of the Bill, including, I hope, one or two others that we may be able to write in during the course of the Committee stage.
    The Amendment having appeared on the Notice Paper, to reject it would be unfortunate because it would tend to discourage and worry Commonwealth producers. They have real fears; they are frightened that Argentine meat may be dumped in this market, which may not necessarily affect our own farmers because of our internal arrangements, but might gravely affect exports from Australia. The same thing could apply in the case of a possible dumping of wheat from France—and there is always the danger that the United States may unload its surplus stocks in such a way that Commonwealth exporters to this country would be gravely affected. These Commonwealth exporters want to know that prompt action would be taken, and the acceptance of the Amendment would make it clear to them and to their Governments that it was our intention to use the powers of the Bill promptly.
    We ourselves are also in need of reciprocity. We need the same sort of protection in Commonwealth markets against dumping by some other country that they need in our market. As The Times said in its City column on the 25th of this month:
    "It is still difficult for British traders to compete on equal terms with American exporters in countries where the Export-Import Bank is active."
    That means that there is a form of subsidisation of American products and exports which may go to Commonwealth markets and, because they are cheap owing to the cheap credit underlying them, they can hurt our exporters to those Commonwealth countries. We are, therefore, greatly in need of reciprocity, and it is easier to get reciprocity if we make it completely clear what we are going to do ourselves.
    If the Government are to argue that putting these words in would make no difference, they are really putting forward an argument for accepting the Amendment. There can be no objection to putting them in, whereas there can be obvious advantages in making our intentions clear to Commonwealth Governments and producers. If it is in the
    1004
    Government's mind so to argue I hope that they will turn the argument in favour of something which can do no possible harm and can make no difference in the strict legal sense, but can make a considerable difference in the confidence which Commonwealth exporters will have about the intended actions of the Government.
    Mr. Robert Edwards: I wish to support the Amendment. It may be argued that to dump meat, butter or wheat on to the British market can be of great advantage to consumers, but it would be only a temporary advantage compared to the harm it might do to parts of the British Commonwealth. For example, I understand that America has huge stocks of surplus butter. These stocks can be released at any time on to the British market. Temporary advantages would arise, but immeasurable harm could be done to parts of our Commonwealth.
    I do not see any reason why the President of the Board of Trade should not accept this very reasonable Amendment.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): We have complete sympathy with the intention behind the Amendment. As I said on Second Reading, one of the advantages of the Bill is that, following the provisions of G.A.T.T., we shall be able to use it where goods are dumped in this market and, as a consequence, they injure one of our established sources of supply outside this country.
    Naturally, one thinks first of the Commonwealth sources of supply when considering the possibility that we should use the powers under the Bill in this way. But, having regard to the very good and close relations which we have with the Commonwealth, I do not think that it is necessary to spell out in the Bill words of the kind which it is here proposed to put in. As I have said, the Commonwealth countries would be uppermost in our minds, but I do not think that it would be very wise to put in words which gave the impression—as these words certainly would—that other countries would not have the benefit of the G.A.T.T. provision.
    I can see that a case might arise where, if we got reciprocal treatment from a

    1005
    country which was not a member of the Commonwealth, we might like to use the powers in the way in which the Bill lays down. Far from this Amendment making no difference, it is so worded as to cause extreme trouble. Hon. Members will see that Clause 1 says in what cases these duties may be imposed, and, as a qualification, it lays down that we should have to be satisfied having regard to all the circumstances that it would be "in the national interest." Then comes the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment:
    "or would assist the economy of any member of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
    That is an alternative. We could not write into the Bill that in cases where it was not in the national interest, but in the interest of a Commonwealth economy, we should use these powers. I sympathise with hon. Members opposite who drafted this Amendment. I am in exactly the same position as they are, as I have only had a short time to examine the Bill, and I realise how difficult it is to draft accurately; but to put in this Amendment as it is would create a very awkward situation.
    Surely the phrase, "in the national interest" would cover the case where, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, dumping had taken place which injured a source of supply outside this country. We should only suggest to the House that an Order be confirmed for a duty because we thought it in the national interest, and I think it would be better not to try to spell this out. The Commonwealth countries know quite well, and we have told them, that in suitable cases we are ready to use the powers in this way.
    Having regard to our general obligation under the G.A.T.T., I do not think it would be wise to single out one section of G.A.T.T. members, the Commonwealth countries, and write them into the Bill. The Amendment, as drafted, will not do, and, therefore, I advise the Committee not to accept it, while giving them the assurance that we have the powers and will use them in this way.
    Mr. Ronald Williams: I am disappointed at the President's reception of this Amendment. I am not impressed, and I hope that the Committee is not either, by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. He assumes that when one says that something should be done in the national interest, and then puts it
    1006
    in the words of the Amendment, a distinction is made which would imply that we were saying, "Now we will do something for the Commonwealth countries if it is against our national interest". The right hon. Gentleman has put it as if it were an alternative which involves a certain amount of mutually exclusive consideration. In fact, it can be looked at in quite another way.
    It can be considered from a standpoint from which we should be influenced solely by whether or not it was in the national interest. Then there is a standpoint from which it would not prejudice our national interest in any way; in fact, it would be irrelevant to our national interest. That would happen in respect of many trades which would assist the economy of one of the Commonwealth countries, but would not help or injure our national interest. But, because of our close link with the Commonwealth, we should be inclined to say that because this was doing harm there we wished to do something to help. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it could have that effect. If that is made absolutely clear, the Commonwealth countries could, by reciprocal arrangements, make things much easier for us. We lose that benefit unless we state this specifically and indicate our intention.
    I am disturbed, because it appears to me that part of the President's argument was that we did not wish to say this and to put the Commonwealth nations in a special position. We wanted to consider our national interest solely, and there might well be a conflict which would suggest, not that we wish to help the Commonwealth, but that we saw reasons why we should not. I should have been more impressed by the President's argument that we are being specific in relating this matter to the Commonwealth and not other contracting parties to G.A.T.T. if the right hon. Gentleman had said, "Here is a jolly good idea. Article VI of G.A.T.T. specifically states that this sort of thing should be done and we will go the whole hog and do it in accordance with that Article."
    I should have been more impressed had the right hon. Gentleman also said to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, "My quarrel with you is that you have not drafted your Amendment in sufficiently wide terms. You have related it to the Commonwealth, and you

    1007
    have not gone far enough. But the idea is good; it is strictly in accordance with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and, therefore, between now and Report stage I will consider the matter and produce something which will give you all this, and something more as well."
    Instead of taking that line the President has flatly refused to accept this Amendment. When the observations made in this debate are read in Commonwealth countries, I hope that they will concentrate on what the right hon. Gentleman said about being in general agreement with the idea although he did not like the method of doing it. If Commonwealth leaders address themselves to the arguments which the President used in refusing this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman may find that those arguments will do much more harm than he considers that our Amendment can do.
    4.0 p.m.
    Major H. Legge-Bourke: I would support my right hon. Friend in resisting this Amendment, but for rather different reasons from the ones he gave. I should have thought that the one thing which we ought to try to avoid in this Committee is to attempt virtually to legislate for an autonomous Dominion. If we do incorporate these words in this Clause, it is virtually certain that we are saying in so many words that we are better judges of what is in the interests of individual Commonwealth countries than what their own Governments can decide for themselves. For that reason alone, I think there is a very strong case for resisting this Amendment, not because we do not wish to do anything which would help the Commonwealth in the long term.
    I hold the view that the moment we start talking about the national interests of this country, those words become synonymous with the interests of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that this country can ever afford to do something which is damaging to the Commonwealth in the long run, or that the Commonwealth well-being is improved by doing something which is damaging to the United Kingdom. For that reason, also, I think that there is a strong case for resisting the Amendment.
    1008
    Further, I believe that the use of the word "or" at the beginning of the Amendment is most unfortunate, because it implies that there is some difference between this country's interests and the interests and well-being of the Commonwealth as a whole. If the Amendment is to be incorporated in the Bill at all, it ought to begin with the word "and" rather than "or", but, personally, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to incorporate it in the Bill at all.
    We have to remember that there are certain commodities which are produced in Commonwealth countries, particularly Canada, which can be very inconvenient for home producers, particularly in horticulture. We have had examples in the past, when the Canadians at a particularly unfortunate time sent in apples at very reduced prices at a time when the home grower was hoping to be able to dispose of his crop. Therefore, without contradicting what I have said, I think that sometimes, when not enough thought is given to these things by the United Kingdom Government, as when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, certain things can happen which allow the Commonwealth countries to do things which, with a little more thought, the United Kingdom Government ought to have been able to show them they would be very wise not to do.
    Therefore, so long as the United Kingdom Government are fully aware of the great necessity of protecting people in this country who are producing commodities which really cannot stand up against unfair competition, there is nothing at all contradictory, in my view, in a policy which is in the interests of this country and the general well-being of the Commonwealth as a whole. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be rejected.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I must say a word or two in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). He said that we did not give enough thought when we were in office to what we were doing, but, clearly, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given enough thought to the arguments he has used in his own speech. He is guilty of a flat contradiction. He started by talking about the interest of the Commonwealth never being in conflict with the interest of this country, and then gave a specific example when they could be

    1009
    in conflict. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must make up his mind on which point he will rest.
    When the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we were proposing that we should legislate for other Commonwealth countries, he was talking nonsense. What we must do is legislate ourselves, here, and use the powers here. Indeed, the President said we would do the very things which this Amendment is intended to spell out. The right hon. Gentleman was not against giving that power, but thought that it was unnecessary. If this were legislating on behalf of the Commonwealth, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman said we shoud not do, it is the very thing which the Government are prepared to do. We think it is not legislating on behalf of another Commonwealth country, but legislating in this House and in this country within the powers which Parliament has. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech had any relevance at all to the matter under discussion.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
    Provided That, where goods are exported to the United Kingdom by any of the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Board of Trade shall not exercise its power under this Act unless it appears to the Board that the dumping or subsidising of such goods would cause or threaten material injury to an established industry or retard materially 'he establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom.
    The President of the Board of Trade will not be able to use one argument here which he used against the last Amendment, namely, that it singles out some members of G.A.T.T., because this one specifically includes all of them. The right hon. Gentleman will have to think up some other argument in that respect, because the argument he used on the previous Amendment, or that part of it, is now in favour of our Amendment.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to write clearly into the Bill an important part of the definition of dumping which occurs in Article VI of G.A.T.T., in paragraph (6, a). We want this in the Bill because we are very keen that the Bill shall do what it sets out to do, that it shall deal only with dumping and improper subsidy of exports and shall not in any way be the pretence for smuggling
    1010
    in protection in general. I know that I shall carry our Liberal hon. Friends with us on that point.
    No doubt the argument will again be used that it is not, in the strictest sense, necessary. On the other hand, it seems to us a very great pity when there is a very clear definition of dumping in an international instrument to which we are a party not to follow that definition up, and all the more because the main definition of dumping in the Bill is, of course, drawn from Article VI of G.A.T.T. If we draw part of it from that Article and leave out another part of the definition, which is very important, it really suggests that we are deliberately leaving out that part of the definition.
    Our first reason for the Amendment, therefore, is that we really want to define genuine dumping as closely and as narrowly as we can. I think that that is also the intention of the Government, and that it is an objective on which we are not at variance, but I believe that our wording would achieve that objective better than does the Clause unamended.
    The Minister of State said, on Second Reading, when I made this point in general, that if we put these words in from Article VI of G.A.T.T. it would hamstring us in our trade relations with countries which are not members of G.A.T.T. I think he said that they were the Iron Curtain countries. We saw the force of that, and the hon. and learned Gentleman can see that we have drafted our Amendment to meet that very point. This would not in any way hamstring us in our trade relations with the Iron Curtain countries, or any other countries not included in G.A.T.T. which do not have obligations towards us which some others have under Article VI.
    We feel that it would be worth while spelling this out to make clear that we do not intend to smuggle in protection, and that, in regard to our relations with other members of G.A.T.T., we intend to apply a definition of dumping which is strictly and literally in accord with the definition agreed by all members of G.A.T.T. under Article VI.
    Mr. Peter Remnant: I confess that I had at one time considered tabling an Amendment which would have the same effect as that which the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has moved. I thought at that

    1011
    time that it was inherent in the purposes of the Bill that attention should be paid to material interests. On looking at the Amendment of the rignt hon. Gentleman, I would have thought that not only is his wording considerably better than that of the Amendment which I had thought of tabling, but that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, and that it is better to write this into the Bill than leave it as an understanding. The prime purpose of the Bill is to avoid doing material injury to an established industry or retarding materially the establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom.
    The other point which obviously arises is the differentiation between member countries of G.A.T.T. and other countries. Here again, if liberty is to be given for action by the Board of Trade, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick is quite right. If we believe in G.A.T.T.—there may be some of us who do not believe in it 100 per cent.—and if we are aiming at the objective expressed in the Amendment, I suggest that we are right to limit it to G.A.T.T. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in asking my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether he can accept the Amendment.
    Mr. R. Williams: I hope that the Minister will receive the Amendment favourably. We are at one in that we wish to avoid the effect of dumping on our industries. We are at one in that we wish to avoid the effect of these practices where they damage our national interest. In Lancashire, in particular, we are most sensitive about this, because goods which have been manufactured there have had to be left in the shops, and in stock, and the workers engaged in their manufacture have been on short time or unemployed. At the same time, the men and women so affected have had the humiliating and infuriating experience of seeing dumped and subsidised goods being sold in the shops in the very areas where they themselves were manufacturing their goods. There will be no lack of sympathy for the measures which should be taken to provide the terms of fair trade.
    In deciding and defining what is to be done in that connection, it would be right, if G.A.T.T. did not exist at all, for the Bill to be just as it is, without the
    1012
    Amendment. There is, however, one point which must surely be decisive in any argument as to whether the proviso should be included, and that is that the Bill stems from Article VI of G.A.T.T. In Article VI this definition appears in specific terms.
    What is our position if we say, in an Agreement solemnly arrived at, "This is what we mean", but, when we are putting that Agreement into legislative effect in a Bill, we say, "We will apply a much wider definition and go beyond what we have agreed."? That is not a question of the greater including the lesser. Here, we are doing something fundamentally different from Article VI if we do not define in terms similar to those in the Agreement how far we wish this to apply.
    Does the Minister really intend the Committee to give authority for the application of the measures proposed in the Bill in cases against G.A.T.T. countries where the definition in the Agreement would not be applicable? Has he some idea of dumping or subsidising—thinking now only of that obtaining between the contracting parties to G.A.T.T.—and does he want to take some measures beyond the Agreement, even though he is presumably in honour tied by the terms of the Agreement? It is most advisable that, when we are giving the wide powers which I think we are properly giving in this Measure, we should ensure that they are defined in the terms to which we have, as contracting parties to G.A.T.T., already agreed.
    4.15 p.m.
    Major Legge-Bourke: If I may be allowed to try to put the brake on this unshovelling of sovereignty exercise in which we are indulging, I should be grateful. The argument we are hearing is that because a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed some years ago we must, therefore, make quite certain that the Bill in no way infringes the undertakings of that Agreement. I do not mind openly confessing that if the Bill could be used to reassert our right to discriminate in trade, and so undermine the whole principle of G.A.T.T., nobody would be more pleased than I.
    The difficulty we are in is that half our trade concerns the Commonwealth, one quarter of our trade concerns European countries and the remaining one

    1013
    quarter is with countries which are neither Commonwealth nor European. Unfortunately, however, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade embraces a great many countries in all three of those groups. We are, as it were, discussing the Bill with a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, in the shape of the proposals for the free trade area in Europe. My own belief is that when that agreement is signed, whether we become members or not, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will, from that moment onwards, be entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the future.
    It would seem to me a pity, in discussing the Bill, if we felt so bound to the existing terms of the General Agreement that we produced a Measure which will not be the most effective we could devise to deal with the problem with which we are confronted—namely, dumping. If it is really a question of international relationship, depending upon the moment when this is implemented, I would far sooner that we drafted a Bill which really did restore to the United Kingdom the right to discriminate in that quarter of our trade which is neither European nor Commonwealth, and delayed the appointed day when this Bill will become an Act, rather than that we should try to devise a Bill now which will be undermined by the very fact that we have tried to keep it within the terms of G.A.T.T.
    The Amendment has another danger in it. I refer to the question of threatening material injury to an established industry. Of all parts of industry threatened by dumping, none is more threatened than horticulture, which is often regarded as part of agriculture. It may well be argued by those who want to dump horticultural produce into this country that, when we take the global amount of the dumped commodity and compare it with the total production of British agriculture, the imports could not possibly be regarded as any material menace to the agricultural industry as a whole.
    The horticultural industry is not sure whether it can be regarded as a separate industry in the context of G.A.T.T., but the impact of dumped commodities upon the industry can be catastrophic. Even so, it may very well be that we should
    1014
    not be able to establish that material injury had been done to it because agriculture, of which horticulture may be regarded as part, would not have been seriously damaged.
    Mr. Remnant: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is not conveying the impression that he intends to give, because he might be interpreted as not regarding horticulture as an established industry.
    Major Legge-Bourke: The whole implication of my remarks is that horticulture is very much a separate industry. Growers in this country regard themselves as separate from agriculture, although they rely on the leadership given by the organisation which represents agriculture as a whole. There is a very strong subcommittee of the National Farmers' Union to deal with horticulture, but when high level talks take place on the subject it is the N.F.U., as a body, which conducts the negotiation and not its horticultural sub-committee.
    I do not think that anybody in horticulture wants a complete banning of imports, but to avoid the effect of unfair competition it is important to take action in time. There is a very real risk arising out of the slight difference of emphasis shown between the opening speech of my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading and the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, when he was replying to the debate. There is uncertainty whether or not the procedure will be quick enough. The full rigmarole outlined with great lucidity by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State would often be far too slow to produce any real benefit to horticulture in this country.
    Mr. R. Williams: I am following the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) as well as I can. If his embarrassment is to be found in the fact that horticulture should be regarded as a separate industry and is not so regarded—which I understand to be his point—and if he is speaking against the Amendment and his argument were to succeed, he would be thrown back on the words "national interest." Horticulture being regarded as a small part of agriculture would embarrass him just as much, if not more

    1015
    in that case, because "national interest" is a much wider expression than the words we are discussing.
    Major Legge-Bourke: For the purpose of his own argument the hon. Member very conveniently forgot to give any consideration to the point I made earlier, about having the right to discriminate in this country. My greatest hope of the Bill is that it will not be "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" by the present terms of G.A.T.T. If the European market is established, G.A.T.T. will be completely out of date and will have to be redesigned. We should draft the Bill to see that what we get is in the best interests of our country and of those industries or parts of industries which are most open to threats of dumping and unfair discrimination.
    I would like to call attention to a particular form of dumping which might be relevant also on a later Amendment. I should like to raise it now to avoid having to speak on the subject again later. There is a form of disguised dumping which is often suspected to be taking place and which it is virtually impossible to prove. It particularly affects commodities which are still under quota, and in horticulture that means apples and pears. The quota permits are based on the monetary value. It is possible for Italian farmers to send double the amount of pears that the quota would include at current prices, and yet to keep within the quota.
    Mr. R. Williams: On a point of order. I am very interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, Sir Charles, but surely it is related to subsection (3), in respect of which there are Amendments on the Notice Paper. If a debate is raised on this point some of my hon. Friends who are interested in the matter would like to take part in it. Would that be in order on this Amendment?
    Major Legge-Bourke: We are discussing the threat of material injury to an established industry in this Amendment. I should have thought my argument was not out of order on that point. I do not know whether you wish to give a Ruling, Sir Charles.
    The Chairman: To which Amendment was the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) calling attention?
    Mr. Williams: We have an Amendment in page 2, line 20, after "goods" to insert:
    "or certain loans or other credit facilities in respect of raw materials".
    It is to be read in relation to subsection (3, b), which contains these words:
    "where such treatment has the effect of assisting a reduction of the prices of goods offered for export."
    That is exactly what the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely is talking about.
    The Chairman: I would not like to rule on that matter at the moment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we should be discussing the subject later. Perhaps we might discuss these Amendments together.
    Mr. Williams: My fear is that my hon. Friends who are concerned with subsequent Amendments might be tempted to make their contributions now.
    The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will try to keep his remarks as close as he can to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Yes, Sir Charles. I had very nearly come to the conclusion of those remarks.
    It is possible for the pears sent in a particular consignment to be in accordance with the quota value and yet be double the quantity. They come in to the great advantage of the importer and to the great disadvantage of the home producer. The deficiency is made up later by putting up the prices of imports which are not subject to quota. The practice is notorious, although I do not think that it is widespread.
    If we are to prevent material injury, our action must be very prompt indeed if it is to have the slightest effect in protecting the home producer. I hope that we shall have a re-emphasis of the points made by my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend to the effect that the Board of Trade will have power to take action on its own very quickly and that we shall not always have to go through the entire procedure outlined by the Minister of State.
    I come back to the point I was making at the beginning of my speech, that it would be a pity if we did not take advantage of the opportunity that the Bill gives to produce something in the long-term

    1017
    interest of this country, visualising the possibility of circumstances changing very considerably as the result of the Messina Powers taking action and of the O.E.E.C. Powers coming in.
    I am not asking for a definite decision today because I know that he would not be able to give it, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will not rule out the possibility that if European free trade is something we shall simply have to go into he will give far more consideration to that quarter of our trade which is neither European nor Commonwealth and see whether it will be necessary for us, contrary to the present terms of the G.A.T.T., to reassert our right to discriminate in that portion of our trade.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. R. Edwards: Perhaps we may now get back to the Amendment, as we are not discussing the European common market, or the terms of G.A.T.T. We are discussing putting into the Bill some words in Article VI of G.A.T.T., which is about the best definition of dumping which has been written into any documeent which has come from any series of conferences in the world.
    In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the President of the Board of Trade repeatedly declared that the Bill itself is greatly influenced by Article VI of G.A.T.T. If that is so, I do not see why there should be resistance to this simple and very clearly defined Amendment, which would merely write into the Bill those words in the Agreement which refer to dumping which is likely to undermine
    "…or threaten material injury to an established industry…"
    My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), in an excellent speech in the Second Reading debate, gave the concrete example of the Lancashire cotton industry where, in only five years, 7,000 skilled and trained workers had been driven out of their industry. We do not want that to happen to engineering, or plastics, or a whole range of other industries. By accepting this wording we would merely define the prevention of injury which could arise out of dumping.
    We could have dumping of products which might be cheap but which would ruin and completely undermine a strategic industry, of this country. Because
    1018
    there would be no possibility of competing, skilled workers might be dispersed, and in times of crisis it would be impossible for us to reassemble and retrain those workers. We might have temporary advantages 'through low prices of commodities, but those advantages would have no meaning at all if serious damage were done to a growing or established industry.
    For these modest reasons, and those submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept this Amendment. He has already indicated the influence which Article VI of G.A.T.T. has had on the Bill. For the life of me, I cannot see why there should be resistance from the Government benches to the Amendment.
    Sir D. Eccles: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) depressed me quite considerably. I knew that we were about to go in for a very long and difficult negotiation on the European free trade area, but I had not reckoned that it would be followed by renegotiating G.A.T.T. That would be a tremendous task indeed.
    Since my hon. and gallant Friend raised this as an important question, I think I ought to tell him that there is no intention at all of balancing the advantages which we hope to gain from going in with the European free trade area by greater discrimination against the United States and other countries which are neither European nor members of the Commonwealth. Indeed, we look upon the possibility of joining in the free trade area in Europe as another move in a line we have been pursuing for some time, namely, the liberalisation of trade over the widest possible field.
    We have put our name to G.A.T.T. Although I quite agree with some of my hon. Friends that to be 100 per cent. supporters of G.A.T.T. is very difficult, none the less the balance of advantage for a trading country like ours, seems fairly clear. As I said in my Second Reading speech—of which I should like to remind the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams)—we have no intention of going back on the obligations that we have assumed under Article VI.

    1019
    The question, therefore, is whether we should write into the Bill the particular words concerning
    "material injury to an established industry."
    We did not do so because it makes a distinction between our treatment of members of G.A.T.T. and countries which are not members of it. I thought that, possibly, it would be sufficient to give the Committee an assurance that we were going to abide by Article VI without writing it into the Bill. However, I am quite ready to do so and to accept the principle of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking-ham (Mr. Remnant).
    The interesting thing about the Amendment is why it cannot be accepted as it stands. It cannot be accepted because it is contrary to the interests of the Commonwealth, which the right hon. Member defended so lustily on the previous occasion. The Amendment says:
    "…would cause or threaten material injury to an established industry or retard materially the establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom."
    Since we have the interests of the Commonwealth at heart we should not restrict this to the United Kingdom. As we said on the previous Amendment, where a clear case is made we mean to use those powers if the source of supply which is materially injured is outside this country and, more particularly, in the Commonwealth.
    Therefore, if the right hon. Member will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake at the next stage of the Bill to propose words which will embody what the right hon. Member wishes to do and widen the scope so that the industry concerned may be one which is outside this country as well as one which is inside this country.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It was not our intention to damage the Commonwealth. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to conflate the Amendment we were just discussing and the Amendment he has promised. We shall be very interested to see the words he chooses to achieve that object. In the light of the undertaking that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say to my right hon. Friend that, although I do not propose to pursue the matter now, the statement he has made about our intentions if we were to go into the European common market I regard as the most disturbing statement which has yet been made on this subject. I hope that he will understand that I feel that what he has said has made it all the more important that we should not go into the European free trade area.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end to insert:
    Provided that this section shall not apply to imported goods unless the dumping is the result of the subsidy affecting the goods, or of a restriction or control imposed by the Government or other authority of

    (a) the country in which the goods originated, or

    (b) where the country from which the goods were exported to the United Kingdom is different from the country in which they originated, either the country in which the goods originated or the country from which they were exported.

    I am somewhat relieved to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is greatly disturbed about something which the Government are doing, because that means that I shall probably be a great deal happier about what they are doing.
    Since the President of the Board of Trade has, in principle, accepted the last Amendment, and in view of some of his remarks on Second Reading, the present position is that we have some general definition of national interest. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely would perhaps like to be assured on one point which disturbs me, and it is whether the horticultural industry is considered to be an industry of its own or part of the agricultural industry. I referred on Second Reading to a recent ruling made on this in the United States, from which he will see that there is hope for him that if the Bill is passed the President of the Board of Trade might decide that "industry" also means "a section of an industry." That is the case on which there has been a ruling in the United States.
    My complaint about this kind of legislation is that Parliament passes something

    1021
    which is essentially very vague and which is developed as time goes on. It may well be that as time passes it will be considered in the national interest to impose some dumping duty if only a small injury has been done to an industry, and not only in the case of a whole industry but to a section of an industry or a section of an industry in an area. That is now the position in the United States. It all arises from the basis of Article VI of G.A.T.T. If we are on the basis of Article VI, where shall we be in a few years' time in the various interpretations which will follow?
    On Second Reading, I made it clear that the Liberal Party was in support of the Government having weapons as a deterrent to stop interference caused by Governments with the smooth flow of trade. I had in mind circumstances in which Governments gave subsidies, or even if they interfered with trade in a way which is excluded by this Bill in the last paragraph of subsection (2). I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has tabled an Amendment, in page 2, to leave out lines 28 to 31. If the general principles which I should like the Bill to follow were to be adopted, I should gladly support that Amendment; but not, I am afraid, if things go the way I expect.
    We should divide in our minds those acts of dumping which take place as the result of the assistance of an industry in another country by its Government from that dumping which is done by a private firm which has some surplus of which it wishes to dispose. I was alarmed by what the President said, as reported at column 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd January. I wonder whether, on second thoughts, he stands by it. He was answering an intervention from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), and he gave the following answer off the cuff—and if he stands by that answer it is an alarming description of the way in which he intends to use these powers:
    "I suppose that if, say, at the end of the season, a foreign firm started to dump in this market fashion goods which it had failed to sell in its own market, it would be reasonable to consider putting on an anti-dumping duty." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 58.]
    Is it reasonable? What will happen to those goods? We shall do it. In fact,
    1022
    we are doing it all over the place. Certainly, it will happen when there is a common market in Europe. There will be surpluses at the end of seasons and at other times. There will be nothing vicious or underhand about it. People will have made a little more than the market wants at the price which would show a profit, and the only way they can get rid of the goods is to cut the price. There will be a limited quantity of such goods. How can we refuse to have any of that dumping? if we refuse, we shall get into trouble.
    In any event it would be unwise, for our market can absorb such goods, but We shall get into trouble from the point of view of retaliation, because we shall be doing the same thing in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere, and if we prevent their surpluses from coming here, when they have some, they will try to prevent our surpluses from entering their countries.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): Will the hon. Member explain why the exporting, dumping country cannot cut the price in its own country, too?
    Mr. Holt: Of course it will.
    Hon. Members: Then it is not dumping.
    Mr. Holt: if that is the position, I am most interested to know it, but it is not my reading of the Bill. A fair market price is related to the cost price, too, as I understand. I take it from the Bill that it is dumping if anything is sold below the cost price, and in this case that would mean the cost price plus the cost of transit to the country where the goods are being sold.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: It says specifically in Clause 7 that the difference must be the difference between the price at which it is exported and the price at which it is selling in the ordinary course of trade in the country of export. It is not the cost price; it is a comparison between the price in the market there and the price in the market here.
    Mr. Holt: I know that, but hon. Members will see that it involves a question of the interpretation of Clause 6 (3). If I am wrong I shall be pleased to hear about it and shall be relieved of many worries, but I take it that when the

    1023
    market price cannot be ascertained because of some disturbance of conditions the President of the Board of Trade is entitled to find out the cost price.
    Sir D. Eccles: If the goods are on sale in the country of origin, that is the first criterion. It is only when that does not exist that we go on to an estimation of what they cost. If there is a home market price and that price has been cut, then we cannot claim that the goods are dumped.
    Mr. Holt: I am very glad to hear that and I shall look further into it, but it seemed to me that if the market had been disturbed in some way and the price had been reduced, that might be a sufficient reason for the Minister to examine the question purely from the point of view of cost.
    The last point that I want to make in support of my own Amendment is that the chief problem in creating stability of trade comes from endeavouring to get countries to stop interfering, and the residual problem left, once that is done, is very small indeed.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: All that the hon. Gentleman's argument presupposes is that no country in Europe or elsewhere has a nationalised industry. If an industry is nationalised and forms a substantial part of the national economy it is inseparable from the operation of the Government policy that the Government wishes shall be carried out by that industry, as in the case of France with the Renault factory or Italy with the Fiat factory. How can he make a statement of that kind, which is so general in character as to be invalid?
    Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Member mean by that that every industry in France is to some extent interfered with by the Government? That is presumably his point.
    Mr. Nabarro: It is not presumably my point at all. The point is that all these countries have in a degree nationalised industries and the general policy of those industries is determined at least in some measure by Governmental action. It is, therefore, stupid to say that a Government must not in any circumstances interfere in commercial policy when it is their duty and responsibility to guide the policy of nationalised industries.
    Mr. Holt: We are now on a different point. I am not now arguing whether Governments should interfere in industrial or commercial policy on any occasion. I am merely saying that one of the troubles in trade is the constant interference of Governments which results in some kind of subsidy to private firms. In the prevention of that kind of thing I am wholeheartedly in support of the Bill.
    The whole point of my Amendment is to say that where a private firm, unsupported by any Government subsidy or any Government control which has the effect of subsidising its goods, happens for a month or two to sell its goods at a price which amounts to dumping in another country, it should not be a dumping activity which should attract the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. The basic reason that I say this is that such a firm could not go on doing that for long. If it sells goods below cost to another country for long, it eventually goes out of business. Meantime, we do not want a lot of work done here and a lot of people disturbing the whole channels of the Customs looking for this kind of thing.
    We shall spoil the whole effort if we try to catch every little attempt at dumping by every firm in countries which send goods here. We should concentrate on the major problem, of which there was mention in a previous debate, concerning dumping activities, such as the French subsidy on potatoes and subsidies on wheat, American butter and the like, which might completely upset the agricultural market. If we concentrate on dealing with those problems, then the others are of minor significance and we would do far better to leave them out of the Bill.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. If it were adopted it would vitally effect the great national industry of agriculture. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has pointed out the risks to horticulture, but I am interested in the possibility of the dumping of new potatoes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) would allow the free import of all kinds of new potatoes into this country at all times.
    Mr. Holt: Not without tariffs.
    Mr. Hughes: Let me give an illustration. When I have given it perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to convince me that I am wrong and that I should vote for his Amendment.
    I understand that if the Amendment were carried there would be free importation to this country of new potatoes, say, from Cyprus. Last year we had an importation of new potatoes from Cyprus into South Ayrshire, which was simply catastrophic—far more catastrophic than the importation of potatoes from France.
    Ayrshire farmers like the new potato market to come in about March or April. While we had no objection to the importation or dumping of new potatoes into this country when we could not supply them, as a result of Government action in Cyprus the Cyprus potato crop was delayed for a whole month because of the potato ships being held up in Famagusta. Just as Ayrshire new potatoes were coming on to the market, four shiploads of new potatoes from Cyprus came in a month late and arrived in Glasgow and the Port of Leith. The result was that Ayrshire farmers paid the collective fine imposed on the people of Cyprus, because through this dumping, Ayrshire farmers lost approximately £500,000.
    To the farmers in that particular part of Scotland this is an essential national industry, and the Ayrshire branch of the National Farmers' Union sent me an urgent message telling me to bring this to the attention of the Government. Supposing the hon. Member for Bolton, West represented South Ayrshire, would he have agreed that this huge lot of potatoes should be allowed to come into the country and completely ruin the farmers in his constituency?
    Mr. Holt: Whether my Amendment were accepted or not, it would not alter the situation.
    Mr. Hughes: So far as I read the Amendment, it would mean that new potatoes from Cyprus would be allowed to come in ad lib., with the result that it would completely ruin those farmers and completely undermine the standard of life of the people in the agricultural industry. I therefore share the apprehension of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
    1026
    I am not so enthusiastic about this European common market at present. Is Cyprus likely to come into the European common market? If it is, I cannot see the slightest enthusiasm on the part of the farmers I represent about this new development in Conservative policy. They will share the grave apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, whom I do not often support, but who has, I think, justified certain statements which he made on this occasion. I suggest that this old, orthodox free trade argument which has been produced does not apply to my particular constituency. Indeed, we shall watch very carefully at what time Cyprus new potatoes are likely to come in this year.
    I should like an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he will be a little more considerate to agriculture in the west of Scotland than was his predecessor. I regard some parts of the old Liberal philosophy and some parts of the free trade argument as quite acceptable, but I suggest that we are entitled to some protection at certain times. We do not want to increase the cost of potatoes in the first three months of the year, because the cost of living is going up enough already.
    Mr. Holt: Do I understand that the hon. Member does not want protection when there is no point in it, but wants it only when it will be effective?
    Mr. Hughes: It is certainly no remedy at all for the problem to which I have drawn the attention of the Committee.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) used the phrase "ordinary course of trade." Surely the dumping of Cyprus potatoes a month late is not the ordinary course of trade. I shall have to oppose this Amendment, in the interests of the particular section of my constituents to whom I have referred.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Christopher Boyd: I do not want to join this remarkable alliance of the outside wings of the political field which has just been demonstrated. It seems to me as though we have extreme reactionaries on both wings of political thought, and I am not in agreement with them. With the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), I am glad of the assurance we have had

    1027
    that the plan of a free trade area in Europe is not intended to be the means of discriminating to a greater extent against countries outside that area. In fact, I hope that this conception will lead to an attempt to draw into it other countries, especially America. If that suggestion could be put to the Americans it would be a useful exercise for them to discuss, and might make it more difficult for them to accuse us of lagging behind in inter-national, especially European, co-operation.
    Major Legge-Bourke: When the hon. Member expresses the hope that America may come in, I hope that he does not overlook the fact that all this tendency towards getting Europe together, either federally or otherwise, was first promoted by the Americans themselves.
    Mr. Boyd: Their coming in would be a useful step towards the solution of our dollar problems. Most of all, we need to open up dollar markets. I believe that Britain is ready to face any competition and make inroads into the American market if American protection can be lifted, and we should frankly say that we should like America to come into this free trade area. At least, when the plan has got under way and the Americans can see that it is a reality, it is probable that they will not want to be left out of the large European market that will be created.
    I hope that the Government will push ahead with the plan for the European free trade area without waiting for the narrower Customs union of the Six to come into operation first. It might be that the six nations will get so bogged down about the details of the tariffs on which they could agree that they might prefer the free trade area as a whole, in which case we might be able to go right into it, instead of tagging on behind.
    I have great sympathy for what the hon. Member for Bolton, West says. To a great extent I am a free trader. I have said that our industries should be—and I believe they are—willing to face fair competition—that applies especially to the ablest and most successful of our industries and businessmen—but they are entitled to look to the Government to protect them against extreme degrees of unfair competition from abroad. That is
    1028
    recognised even in the Liberal Amendment. It is, however, mistaken to believe that such dumping by private industry could not at any time be a serious danger.
    If we could be sure that dumping would continue; if we could, as it were, arrange a bulk, long-term contract for continuous dumping of a certain type of goods so that it was no longer necessary for us to have our own industry capable of supplying those goods, then, of course, dumping would be wholly advantageous to us. We should get products below cost, and benefit by a subsidy provided by another country. That is just what a private industry cannot do. Dumping as a policy of private firms is purely short-term, so I think that this country must be equipped to deal with that kind of eventuality.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It must be a matter of keen disappointment to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) that his advocacy was unable to convince the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think that I would lay myself open to a charge of using the language of hyperbole if I suggested that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire invariably reflected majority opinion in this House; but I think that on this occasion it is probable that, in his opposition to the Amendment, he does so reflect majority opinion.
    I have listened very carefully, as, I am sure, has the whole Committee, to what the hon. Member for Bolton, West had to say. Last night I re-read the speech which he made on Second Reading. I had the pleasure of hearing it at the time. when he also developed his theme of a sort of dichotomy between the two sorts of dumping which, he suggests, exist—a dumping with a Governmental promotion, and a dumping arising purely through the agency of private traders. I am bound to say that, in his differentiation between these two sorts of dumping, he has made a definition which is not in accordance with the facts as known.
    The hon. Member classifies the second sort of dumping, that which he would wish to exclude from the benefits of this Bill, as dumping by private firms with small surpluses. It is, of course, the fact that private individuals do use dumping as an act of deliberate policy. And they

    1029
    need not be individuals; trading corporations or combines of one sort or another do likewise. Moreover, though the periods of dumping may be only seasonal and may be only temporary, it does not at all follow that the effects of well-promoted, well-organised dumping may not be permanent upon the relevant industry in this country, and manifest itself in terms of unemployment, bankruptcies, etc. Therefore, it is not right to take the view that, where we are dealing with dumping originating from acts of policy by traders or trading organisations in other countries, we are dealing with only a small matter. During the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend gave one example. That, of course, was not an exclusive example but was only illustrative.
    The hon. Gentleman expressed apprehension that every little bit of dumped goods will attract the machinery of this Bill. There he is clearly under a misapprehension, as I am sure he will appreciate if he will be good enough to refresh his mind as to the actual text and provisions of the Bill. For an Order in relation to dumping to be made by the Board of Trade, and approved by this House, the following conditions have to be satisfied. First, there has to be dumping in accordance with the criteria specified in the Bill; that is to say, the export price must be less than the domestic fair market price. Secondly, it has to be in the national interest, having regard to all the circumstances. Thirdly, as has been made explicit by the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) earlier this afternoon, which my right hon. Friend has accepted in principle, there will have to be a material injury to the industry in the case of all G.A.T.T. countries.
    Having regard to those three conditions which have to be satisfied, it is apparent that the hon. Gentleman's fears that every petty matter of the sort which he appears to have in mind would automatically bring into operation the machinery and procedures of the Bill, are groundless. In point of fact, I am bound to say to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment runs right counter to the whole principle and pattern of the Bill.
    Mr. Holt: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to reassure
    1030
    me about this? Would the President of the Board of Trade think, when he comes to look at it now, that the remark which he made, reported in col. 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd January, given rather "off the cuff", was not really an accurate description of what he would do, and that those conditions do not really comply with the conditions laid down in the Bill?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend was asked for an example of the way in which the Bill might work. He took as his example a foreign firm starting
    "to dump in this market fashion goods which it had failed to sell in its own market"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 376, c. 58.]
    In giving that example, my right hon. Friend had in mind in his use of the word "dumping" that the conditions specified were satisfied, namely that the export price as defined in Clause 6 was less than the fair market price ascertained under the provisions of Clause 7. Therefore it was, as one would expect, a perfectly valid example, though not intended to be an exclusive catalogue; it was merely what he was asked to give, an example of how the Bill might operate in practice.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I hope that in what he is saying my right hon. and learned Friend is not in any way detracting from what the President himself said on Second Reading on 22nd January:
    "On the other hand, unless we have in reserve the power to act promptly we might as well not introduce a Bill at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 376, c. 63.]
    I hope that the emphasis will be on promptness.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) made that point very eloquently on Second Reading. I think that I did assure him and the House then, in answer to his observations, that it would be necessary for the proper implementation of the Bill that there should be a speedy and efficacious way of dealing with these cases, more particularly cases of seasonal dumping.
    We have that very much in mind, and so far from in any way differing or derogating from what my right hon. Friend said then, I am very happy to have this opportunity of reinforcing it as best I may.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has said some words of consolation to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). Could he give us some assurance about new potatoes?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I listened with careful attention, as always, to the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. It was not clear to me how his case actually fitted into the pattern of this Bill. I was not quite sure what result he had got when he applied his mind to testing it against the criteria specified in the Bill. But I am sure that his constituents will be very gratified that their legitimate interests have been so powerfully advocated in the House of Commons today.
    May I now return to the basic objection to the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). As I was saying, it runs counter to the principle and pattern of the Bill. We are here seeking to give protection by a common remedy against two specific abuses, one, dumping, and the other, subsidies.
    5.15 p.m.
    What the Amendment is in fact doing is to make the identification of a subsidy or bounty a prerequisite for applying the remedy in case of dumping. In other words, under the Amendment dumping would qualify for the remedy of an import duty only if it were, in the words of the Amendment,
    "the result of the subsidy affecting the goods".
    The consequence of that is that the test of dumping could be satisfied only in those cases where there was no point or advantage from it because the remedy would be obtainable under the other half of the Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would bisect the Bill and jettison what we consider to be an indispensable half of it. I think he will not take it amiss if I say that it is a wrecking Amendment. It is based on the Liberal misconception that traders are everywhere fair-minded people and that evil actions are done only under the stamp of Government authority. That is not, I am afraid, the experience that we have of the world. The effect of his Amendment would be to take away a very large part of the protection which the Bill is designed to give, and quite clearly it is unacceptable for that reason.
    1032
    I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. John Cronin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, after "goods," to insert:
    "or certain loans or other credit facilities in respect of raw materials."
    The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I say that I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took with this Amendment the following three Amendments—in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert:

    (a) the giving of any special subsidy on the growing, processing or sale of any raw material or raw materials embodied in a particular product, whether such raw material or raw materials originated in the country from which the goods were exported or a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory, or protectorate of it;

    (b) the giving of favourable taxation treatment to producers or exporters of a particular product or favourable taxation treatment to growers, processors or sellers of any raw material or raw materials embodied in a particular product, whether such raw material or raw materials originated in the country from which the goods were exported or a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory, or protectorate of it.

    In line 25, after "currencies," to insert:
    "or the granting of loans or other credit facilities in respect of raw materials."
    In line 26, to leave out "has" and to insert:
    "loans or other credit facilities have."
    There could then be a general discussion on all four Amendments.
    May I point out that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has not been selected.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Dr. King. It would be very much for the convenience of the Committee, I submit, and would ultimately save a great deal of time, if we might have your permission to include in the general discussion to which you alluded the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). to leave out lines 28 to 31 at the end of Clause 1.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would save time in discussion, but the Amendment to which he refers is not in order.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. The arrangement you propose, Dr. King, is very satisfactory to us. I merely wish to know whether the Amendment actually under discussion would be the Amendment standing in my name?
    The Temporary Chairman: Yes.
    Mr. Cronin: It would probably be convenient to the Committee if, in addition to moving the Amendment in page 2, line 20, I were to move the other two Amendments—
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will move only the first Amendment, but in the debate on it we can discuss and talk about the others.
    Mr. Cronin: The purpose of this Amendment and those Amendments which I have not moved is simply to ensure that the Board of Trade, when considering the question of bounties and subsidies, will take into consideration loans or credit facilities in respect of raw materials.
    This might seem rather like an attempt to gild the lily, but I hope to advance reasons which will show that this is to be taken as a serious Amendment. I was fortified to find that the roving eye of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had lit upon raw materials, and that he regarded this matter as providing an important loophole in the Bill which should be stopped up.
    The Committee is, I am sure, familiar with the fact that fiscal legislation is almost always followed by attempts to find ways of escaping a loss of prospective profit; and frequently a Finance Bill is followed by amending Clauses in the next Finance Bill to deal with a loophole which has to be stopped up. It therefore seems desirable that we should make the Bill as water-tight as possible. Here we have a serious gap which could be used by people with reprehensible intentions for getting indirect bounty or subsidy.
    Clause 1 (3), unamended, simply makes it compulsory for the Board of Trade to consider the giving of direct or indirect bounties or subsidies. I suggest that a loan or a credit facility on exceptionally favourable, or even comparatively favourable, terms is also the equivalent of a bounty or subsidy. The economic principle involved is the very
    1034
    simple one that jam today is worth substantially more than jam tomorrow. In other words, if a credit is given—if a payment due in, say, a year's time is given immediately—it is equivalent to giving rather more than the sum involved.
    To take an example, suppose that a grower of a raw material or someone who mines a raw material requires a loan of £1,000 for a year. Normally, he would have to pay, say, 6 per cent. interest and, therefore, would pay about £60. If, however, the £1,000 loan were given to him at a favourable figure—say, at an interest rate of 2 per cent.—he would be in pocket to the extent of £40. That is a rather elementary arithmetical example to illustrate the point, but it is clear that a subsidy or bounty could be given indirectly simply by giving a loan at a particularly low rate of interest.
    It might be that the prospective grower or miner of a raw material might not be a very credit-worthy person; it might normally be necessary for the market to charge an even higher rate of interest. In that case, if he is given credit on low interest at favourable terms, he would have the equivalent of a direct bounty or subsidy.
    Mr. Nabarro: What is the position of a nationalised industry which has capital provided or perhaps a loan from the Government on exceptionally preferential terms, as in France, for example, in the case of certain motor car factories? Is that a subsidy?
    Mr. Cronin: I do not think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster has read the Bill with the care that he should have done. The point is that the Board of Trade has a discretion and is not bound to take action. Quite obviously, an enlightened President of the Board of Trade, such as we hope the present occupant of the office will be, would not take any action against a nationalised industry such as those of France unless it was exceptionally against the national interest.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am following the hon. Member's argument closely. It is the fact that a French Renault car would be in competition with a British Morris car. If the British Motor Corporation has to pay for the capital in its undertaking producing the Morris car the normal commercial money market rates for the capital employed, but the French capital

    1035
    used by its competitor, Renault, is subscribed by the Government on extremely preferential terms, that amounts to a subsidy to the French nationalised undertaking. That is the point I want to put to the hon. Member.
    Mr. F. Blackburn: Does the hon. Member suggest nationalising the motor car industry here?
    Mr. Nabarro: That observation is very stupid. In the case of Britain, our motor firms are not nationalised. In the case of the French concern to which I have referred, it is nationalised.
    Mr. Blackburn: I was only asking the hon. Member if his solution was nationalisation.
    The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the Committee will proceed in the ordinary way by speeches rather than by cross-questioning and interruption.
    Mr. Cronin: I will reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, but I hope that these stentorian interventions will be kept to the minimum. They add a certain life to our proceedings, but if continued indefinitely they become somewhat tedious. I take the point made by the hon. Member. That is something which the President of the Board of Trade will have to consider when the right hon. Gentleman uses his discretion to take appropriate action. I do not, however, think that it would be proper for me to tell the Board of Trade what it should do in advance of a circumstance like that.
    To return to my argument, another example is the possibility that a grower or miner of a raw material might have to raise an issue of ordinary shares to obtain capital. That would mean that every year he would have to dispense with a substantial part of his profits to the new holders of the equity. If instead he could get a loan under favourable terms, that again would mean that he would have the equivalent of a constant bounty or subsidy year after year.
    I have given some hypothetical examples, but we know that loans and credit facilities under exceptionally favourable terms are being used at this very day more or less to subsidise goods for export. On Second Reading the
    1036
    point was made that growers of cotton in the Belgian Congo export their cotton to Belgium very cheaply and that as a result the Belgians can export carpets and undercut our market here. The hon. Member for Kidderminster made, I thought, a very moving appeal on behalf of the carpet manufacturers.
    I do not think it is generally known that the cotton growers in the Belgian Congo receive credit facilities from their banks at a very much lower rate of interest than in the market generally, and that, of course, constitutes a bounty or subsidy. In these days, when we are dealing with the Iron Curtain countries, where indirect subsidies of this nature can be given with considerable ease and no protest whatever, we have to be particularly careful because those countries are increasingly using trade as an instrument in the cold war. It is very important, therefore, that we should ensure that there is no gap which could be used as a weapon by those countries.
    We shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment if the President of the Board of Trade can find an alternative Amendment which would be equally helpful. I am sure the President will agree that we on this side are trying to be as co-operative and helpful as possible about the Bill, particularly as it seemed from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that the President is dealing with an incipient rebellion rather similar in type to the rebellion that incommoded the Government before Christmas. Naturally, we feel some sympathy with him. We want to help the President as much as we can, and if he can produce an Amendment to the same effect we shall be quite happy to withdraw ours and leave the matter to him.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that there is no difference—certainly not in intention—between his Amendment and ours, and I should not like the hon. Gentleman to deliver a very heavy and unnecessary attack upon us for something which is not really intended to be different. I do not doubt that he has other things he wishes to say with which he will take up the time of the Committee.

    1037
    There is, I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will agree, a real difficulty here. In general, we are agreed that to come under this Bill goods, to be dumped, must be exported abroad at a price cheaper than that at which they are selling at home. There is, however, the possibility that their price may be artificially depressed both at home and for export. That is conceivable. The importing of such goods would be dumping in the ordinary layman's sense of the word but it would not be dumping within the terms of the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned the possibility that a nationalised industry in a foreign country might receive subsidies for selling its goods both in the home market and in the export market at what was really an artificially depressed price. Those goods would not, however, come under the terms of the Bill, because there has to be a differential between the home and export prices to bring the goods under the Bill.
    We do not want to extend the terms of the Bill improperly, but we do want to meet what is a real subsidy or dumping that can harm unnecessarily, and with no advantage to us here, our industries in this country, and unless some Amendment such as this one is made, or an Amendment, indeed, like that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, though it is ours we are discussing, the Bill will have a great defect in it.
    There is also the consideration—and I think that this was what the hon. Member for Kidderminster was primarily thinking about in his Second Reading speech—that some subsidies are concealed and are very difficult to detect, but, none the less, exist. He mentioned the case of cheap credits from the Belgian banks to the cotton growers in the Belgian Congo, or subsidies to the producers of cotton in the Belgian Congo which enable the textile manufacturers in Belgium to get their raw materials far cheaper than anyone else in the world can. Of course, they are subsidies. Whether they are subsidies by the Government or private persons does not matter. Those subsidies would not be subsidies as defined by the Bill as it stands, and if the Bill is to extend to subsidies of that sort we must extend the Bill in this way which we propose.
    There is the further consideration that credits can be given to exporters, as, for
    1038
    instance, by the United States Export-Import Bank. Cheap credit, or very long credit, which comes to the same thing, can be given against which other exporters in the world cannot compete, and that means that American exporters are receiving a subsidy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) pointed out, for they get credit more cheaply than normally one can get it, or get it on longer terms than one can normally get.
    If we are to make the Bill cover those things we must extend it in this sort of way. As I have told the right hon. Gentleman many times, we on this side of the Committee are not desirous of extending its terms in such a way as to smuggle in, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) wants to smuggle in, protection. We do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at all about this, but we do want to cover genuine dumping and genuine subsidisation and we do not think that the Clause, unamended, will do so.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for his words of consolation. My wish in this matter is that the apprehensions expressed so cogently from many quarters of this Chamber during Second Reading are met by suitable Amendments of the Bill now, during Committee. It is true that there is very little difference in principle, between the Amendment of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and that standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, except, if I may say so with due modesty, that our Amendment is a great deal more explicit and a great deal more detailed. It has real advantages, as I shall show in a few moments.
    It would be a mistake to confuse, while we are debating this very complicated issue, three separate though related considerations. The first of those is the question of loans and credits. The second is the question of taxation advantages and favourable terms for taxation purposes. The third is the subsidy for raw materials subsequently embodied in a manufactured article or commodity which finds its way into the United Kingdom in the form of an import. I submit that they are separate considerations

    1039
    though related, and I would plead for the indulgence of the Committee in addressing a few remarks to each of those separate, though related, considerations.
    First, as to the question of loans and credit facilities, it is true that credit facilities for exports are available in manufacturing countries on widely diverse terms. They may be available in one country very much more cheaply than in another. I do not think that any form of words within this Bill could possibly cover contingencies of that kind. When I talk of credit facilities I mean that I as an exporter in Britain may wish to send manufactured goods to Argentina and have to expect to wait six or eight or twelve months to receive my payment, and I may have to finance that transaction, and I may have to pay 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. or more, according to the risk entailed in the market. One of my foreign competitors may then find a merchant banker in his exporting country prepared to finance his transaction on cheaper terms. That is a question of commerce, I submit, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend could conceivably find any form of words to cover differentials of that kind. It is for that reason that I deprecate the form of words used in the Opposition Amendment.
    The question of loans, however, is another matter entirely. What are loans within the context of the Amendment? Are they loans in the form of capital, or are they short-term loans to promote exports from the manufacturing country and merely to tide the exporter over the relatively short time until he receives his payment from his customer? Which are they?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Both.
    Mr. Nabarro: Both. I have dealt with the first type of loan in what I said a moment ago. It is impossible, in my opinion, to find a form of words to cover that. On the capital subscription point, I hope to say something in a non-political party spirit about the difference between a nationalised undertaking in one country and a private enterprise competitor in another.
    It would be possible for a nationalised manufacturing concern in a foreign country to secure loans in the form of capital from its own domestic Govern-
    1040
    ment on terms of interest which were much more favourable than a private enterprise competitor in this country could secure by borrowing on the open money market. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), in somewhat disingenous terms, I thought, suggested that that was a good reason for nationalising the motor car industry.
    I do not wish to dwell on the wider philosophy of whether that is a good thing or not, but I suggest that it is manifestly impossible to try, within the terms of a British Bill, to legislate for diverse variations in the terms of capital subscriptions, which are, in effect, longterm loans, and which obviously exist in manufacturing countries competing with one another. That is why I deprecate the Opposition Amendments.
    I want to add the reasons why the Amendments in my name and those of some of my hon. Friends are essentially different in character. They are designed specifically to deal with the second and third considerations which I mentioned at the outset of my speech. Let us take, for example, the second consideration—the question of taxation. I will quote extremes in the benefits that the foreign competing manufacturer can enjoy in taxation arrangements as compared with our taxation arrangements in Britain.
    Until relatively recently the West Germans were given a direct abatement of corporation taxation, in respect of exports. It has now been stopped by common consent and as a result of action by the British Government, as it was held to be a contravention of the terms and spirit of G.A.T.T. But there are other foreign countries which do not subscribe to G.A.T.T. which may seek to do likewise and grant reduction of taxation related to the exports and over which, therefore, we would have no direct or indirect jurisdiction in the preferential fiscal arrangements made. The exporters in such a country would thus enjoy advantages which competing British firms do not enjoy. There is an indirect form of subsidy there, to a foreign competitor of ours. Such would be a blatant case.
    May I quote a much more obscure case and one with which it is much more difficult to deal? I refer to Belgium. It will be common knowledge that an important part of manufacturing costs is the depreciation allowance granted for taxation

    1041
    purposes on the plant, machinery and equipment. In this country our manufacturers have always laboured under the disadvantage that the Inland Revenue depreciation allowances are applicable to the historical cost of the plant. If plant had been installed in pre-war years the amount of depreciation is related to the pre-war cost, but the cost has risen three or four times, according to the type of plant, in the meantime, and the manufacturer does not obtain a commensurately larger annual sum in depreciation, for tax purposes.
    The Belgians, very wisely, at the end of the war deliberately allowed all their manufacturers to double or more the value of plant standing on their books, to take account of inflation during the war years. The result is that the Belgian manufacturers' depreciation allowance for taxation purposes annually is much greater than that which is granted for comparable plant in this country. This is a matter which has been often ventilated in chartered accountancy circles when complaints are made about the basis of depreciation of assets for taxation purposes in relation to historical cost. It is indisputable that the Belgian carpet manufacturer, using an elderly loom, will have a substantial advantage over his British counterpart and will, in effect, have a taxation subsidy.
    The persons whom I am primarily trying to catch with paragraph (b) of my Amendment in page 2, line 20—
    "the giving of favourable taxation treatment…"
    are any foreign competitors who gain a direct abatement of taxation on exports as part of a deliberate fiscal policy from that country, thereby giving the manufacturers of that country an unfair advantage over their British counterparts.
    The first part of the Amendment I consider to be the more important—the question of
    "the giving of any special subsidy on the growing, processing or sale of any raw material…"
    I readily confess that this part of the Amendment is exploratory in character.
    5.45 p.m.
    I have read the Bill a hundred times and have studied it in the most minute detail and I still cannot understand
    1042
    whether raw materials are included in the generic term "goods." For example, in Clause 1 (1, b) the words used are:
    "…some Government or other authority outside the United Kingdom has been giving a subsidy affecting goods of any description which are being or have been imported into the United Kingdom."
    I am not sure whether the words "affecting goods" mean that if a subsidy is applied to a raw material which subsequently is embodied in manufactured goods, that would fall within the ambit of the words which I have read out.
    That was the gravamen of the case which I put on Second Reading concerning Belgian cotton carpets and which evidently has rather captured the imagination of the Committee, because almost every speech today has referred to it. I think that I can say with due modesty that it was a very good example and one which may be widely applied to other manufactured goods, for many manufacturers are suffering from the same disability.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, when he replied to me at the end of the debate, was generous indeed. He said, referring to me:
    "I had the misfortune not to be present when he was speaking and now he has elected to have the good fortune to have absented himself while I am speaking. As it may be that the rest of the House does not share the enthusiastic interest of my hon. Friend in Belgian carpets, I can deal with him on a more informal basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 125.]
    I want to correct my right hon. and learned Friend. The House of Commons is very interested in Belgian cotton carpets.
    I did not know what his "informal basis" meant, so I rang up his secretary and asked, "Please get your boss to write a full explanation." This is what my right hon. and learned Friend wrote. The Committee ought to be stimulated by his words of wisdom and elucidation which I have his permission to quote:
    "…You then raised the question about the use of the powers in the Bill we were debating in relation to imports of Belgian cotton carpets. Again, I cannot say at this stage what the prospect is of imposing an antidumping or countervailing duty on these goods: clearly, we cannot and should not consider individual cases before the Bill becomes law. Once this has happened, however, it will be open to the carpet manufacturers to apply

    1043
    to the Board of Trade for the imposition of a duty, supporting their case by evidence necessary to meet the criteria in the Bill."
    My right hon. and learned Friend's explanations are impeccable and I am entirely in agreement with him. He goes on:
    "In this connection, I can say that, if there is, in fact, a subsidy, however indirect, given by the Belgian or Belgian Congo Government or a quasi-governmental body to the producers of raw cotton in the Congo, the Bill would be capable of dealing with the practice. This would be achieved by Clause I (1, b): the carpets exported to the United Kingdom would have been affected by a subsidy given by the Government or other authority outside the United Kingdom. The Bill could not operate against this practice, however, if the subsidy were only privately given, for example, by one section of industry to another or by a bank in the normal course of its commercial activities."
    As a result of the statement in that letter, my right hon. and learned Friend has said, in effect—I want him to correct me at once if I am wrong in that interpretation—that if it is demonstrated that a raw material, subsequently embodied in a manufactured article or commodity, has become at an earlier stage the object of a Government subsidy or quasi-Government subsidy, the operation of this Bill may be called into effect and antidumping duties in this country may be imposed on the manufactured article referred to.
    Mr. H. Rhodes: This is very important—
    Mr. Nabarro: I would not be quoting my right hon. and learned Friend were it not important.
    Mr. Rhodes: —because the Belgian Congo is subject to edicts from the home Government and is told at what price its cotton is to be sold to the Belgian manufacturers. Does that come into it at all?
    Mr. Nabarro: Yes, I think it does, and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend has covered that point.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) for attaching such great importance to it. It is a critical part of this Bill and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) did less than justice to me when he inferred that my Amendment was not sufficiently explicit. If he studies the last few words of each paragraph of my Amendment he
    1044
    will find that they are identical. The words are:
    "…or raw materials originated in the country from which the goods were exported or a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory, or protectorate of it."
    Hon. Gentlemen may question why the words "trustee territory" are there. They are included to catch the case of RuandaUrundi, which was a League of Nations mandate until the United Nations decided to call it a Trustee Territory. It is a cotton grower, and the veiled subsidy conditions to which I referred in my Second Reading speech apply to the cotton grown there. Subsequently, that cotton finds its way to the Belgian cotton manufacturers, who are then able themselves to sell Belgian cotton carpets in this country at prices lower than the raw material content alone and by itself in the British carpet counterpart. That is what is putting British carpet weavers on short-time and out of work. Therefore, I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the fact that raw materials come within the ambit of the Bill, but, in view of the uncertainties, I ask that my Amendments—which are much more explicit than the Bill—shall be written into it at this or at a later stage.
    Before I sit down, I will leave carpets and come to a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), who is in Paris on Parliamentary business, has asked me to raise for him. It concerns the raw materials of another industry somewhat analogous in principle to the British carpet industry. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will understand that the terms of this Bill are causing grave apprehensions to many trades and industries, the manufacturers in which just do not understand exactly what the Bill seeks to do.
    As an example, I will quote from a memorandum submitted to my hon. Friend, and thus to me, from the United Tanners' Federation on behalf of the leather manufacturing interests of this country. They write:
    "Restrictions on the export of raw materials are not considered unfair export assistance."
    That is exactly contrary to what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his letter to me. The memorandum continues:
    "The raw hide or skin represents about 70 per cent. of the value of the finished leather and for this reason any tampering with the price of the raw material has a far greater

    1045
    effect on the price of the finished product than in most other industries.…Countries such as India and France, by restricting or prohibiting the export of raw material, cause an artificial surplus which enables their tanners to produce at below the world market price. The industry maintains that to ignore Government export assistance of this type and extent is completely to destroy the value of the Bill as a protection against dumping of leather from these countries."
    I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the Committee that precisely the same conditions apply to this matter as apply to the carpet industry, in so far as the ingredient raw materials in the manufactured article are concerned.
    I have put a case which, I think, is widely supported in all parts of the Committee. I plead with my right hon. and learned Friend that there shall be written into this Bill explicit conditions to make it possible to impose anti-dumping duties, first, in the event of subsidies upon raw materials being given to foreign manufacturers and, secondly, in respect to favourable taxation treatment given to foreign manufacturers.
    Sir D. Eccles: We have had an interesting discussion on these important Amendments. This is a complicated subject and I will do my best to explain why I think that, on balance, the Bill is all right as it is.
    Subsection (3) of Clause 1 deals with subsidies and, of course, the Bill is in two parts. Part of it is against dumping, and in that case it is necessary, before there can be a duty imposed, to establish the difference between the export price and the fair market price. The other part of the Bill, with which we are dealing only here, is concerned with goods that come into this country subsidised. In that case, there is no need to establish what is the price in the country of origin at which similar goods are being sold. We have only to establish that a subsidy has been used to reduce the price of the imported goods which are causing material injury to one of our established sources of supply.
    As I understand, it has always been impossible to define completely and to the satisfaction of everybody exactly what is meant by a subsidy. In this part of the Bill, we are following Article VI of G.A.T.T., which makes no attempt to define a subsidy closely, but states that it is a bounty or subsidy which has been granted
    1046
    "…directly or indirectly, on the manufacture, production or export of such product…"
    Mr. Cronin: What paragraph?
    Sir D. Eccles: Paragraph 2. The Article states that a countervailing duty may be imposed' where the form of that subsidy has been of special assistance to the transport of the goods.
    The Committee will see that in subsection (3, a) we have reproduced that, and it is one of the only two qualifications of what is meant by "subsidy" in the Bill. The paragraph reads:
    "the giving of any special subsidy on the transport of a particular product…"
    Then, in paragraph (b) we have also included the case of currency manipulation.
    The reason for making those two definitions of subsidy is that they are really outside the actual manufacturing cost or the production of the raw material; that is to say, transport and currency manipulation might not be caught by the generally accepted definition of a subsidy, and, therefore, we thought it right, following Article VI of G.A.T.T., to put those two exceptional definitions in the Bill.
    6.0 p.m.
    Beyond that, when one comes to the more straightforward notion of what a subsidy is, it is really anything that can be construed as being directly or indirectly of assistance to the manufacture, production or export of a product, and that would cover the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) in his Amendment and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in his.
    Perhaps I might deal, first, with the point about loans and credit. It is true that by financial assistance of one kind or another a Government can cheapen the export price of some of the products of its territory, and in certain cases where it is extremely clear and blatant, where there are large, manifest subsidies on production, I have no doubt that we should consider the matter. However, I think that the hon. Member for Loughborough will appreciate that in the sort of case which he raised, where a bank gives a loan at 2 per cent. instead of 6 per cent., where the credit-worthiness of the borrower comes in and where the loan is

    1047
    £1,000, it is really not possible for the Bo6ard of Trade to go to a foreign country and discuss the credit-worthiness of a certain borrower, or, indeed, the rate of interest at which he borrows his money. We must leave that, in general, to the ordinary course of business.
    On the subject of the nationalised industries, what has been said is, indeed, true. I would go further than my hon. Friend has gone. In this country we have a nationalised system of transport which every year makes a large loss which is covered by the taxpayers. I have not the slightest doubt that under the definition of the Bill all our transport would be considered to be subsidised, because Parliament votes money which covers the losses made by nationalised industries. Therefore, it goes extremely wide.
    When we come to the problem about raw materials, I think the difficulty experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams-den), who is interested in tanners, arises from the distinction between subsidies and dumped goods. It is possible for the raw materials of goods to have been subsidised, but not the manufactured products themselves: the leather goods or carpets to be dumped in this country might be selling in Belgium at the same price as here. But we could catch that case under not the anti-dumping provisions but the subsidy provisions of the Bill. If we could find an effective instrument by which the Customs could identify subsidised raw cotton in made-up shirts or carpets, it would be possible under the Bill to come to the House for an order to a duty. I do not know how it could be done.
    Mr. Rhodes: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman right away how it could be done. He should alter Clause 5. I should like to explain later how it can be done.
    Sir D. Eccles: I always listen with respect to anything that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has to say about how to do something in connection with the cotton trade, and perhaps he will tell us later on how to do it. What I want to stress is that where it is clear that the raw material content of a manufactured product coming here has been subsidised, we can do something about it under the Bill if it is practicable
    1048
    to identify the subsidised part of the product when it enters this country.
    Having put those points to the Committee, I must say that I do not believe that we should gain by trying to go further in defining what we mean by "a subsidy" than I have gone in relation to the two special cases of transport and currency manipulation. If we incorporated the substance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Loughborough or the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, it would, perhaps, make it more difficult to get the courts to consider that other kinds of subsidies not defined in the Bill are, in fact, subsidies. The more we try to particularise about what a subsidy is, the more difficult it is in relation to other brands of bounties, and so on, which we have omitted. I think it is clear that the wide phraseology used in the G.A.T.T. Article, and more or less reproduced in the Bill, covers all these things.
    I should have liked to accept one of the Amendments if I could, but I do not think that I should improve the Bill by doing so. The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster would not, as it stands, do all that he wants. He refers only to the case where the raw material originates in a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory or protectorate of the manufacturing country. We intend the Bill to go wider than that. It might be that the Belgian manufacturer obtained his material from Japan or some other country, but not one of Belgium's dependent territories. We should, therefore, have to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and it would have to be widened.
    We have had a very short time in which to consider the extremely difficult question whether it is in the national interest to try to define "a subsidy" more closely than is done in the Bill. I am not at all sure that it is. However, if the Amendments might be withdrawn, I will, before the next stage, without giving any undertaking, consider whether it would be worth while to enlarge upon the definition. I can, of course, give an assurance that all that hon. Gentlemen have said that they wished to be done in relation to the definition of "a subsidy" we can do already, and it is our intention to interpret "a subsidy" as covering those points.
    Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the point of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the importation of certain leather skins from a number of countries? On Second Reading I raised the question of calf skins from France. I take it that the kind of concealed subsidy which those imports have cannot be dealt with under the Bill because of the last sentence in Clause 1. The hon. Member for Kidderminster appeared to be under the impression, as the result of the letter which he received from the Minister of State, that they might be dealt with in the same way as the cotton in the Belgian carpets.
    The point is that the countries from which these skins come restrict the export of the skins and so falsely depress the price in the home market, thus enabling manufacturers of leather goods in the home market to take part in the export trade at a great advantage. For instance, calf skin goods manufacturers in France are getting their raw material far more cheaply than it can be bought by manufacturers in this country. That is because of the restrictions on exports. Manufacturers in this country therefore believe that they are unfairly placed. It is a concealed subsidy by price control or export control. I take it that we cannot deal with that kind of practice under the Bill.
    Mr. Nabarro: I want to thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for so clearly bringing out the position of these raw materials, to which I referred and which attract some form of subsidy and which are subsequently embodied in manufactured goods exported to this country. I am very satisfied with what my right hon. Friend has said, because it covers the case of Belgian cotton carpets. He has completely exploded the misconception of the United Tanners' Federation, the tanning industry and the leather industry, which was to the general effect that raw materials were ultra vires the provisions of the Bill. He has now said that as long as the definition of dumping is satisfied, then the raw materials to which the tanners referred are included.
    Mr. Rhodes: Does this apply to Indian cotton, also? That seems to be on all fours with Belgian cotton about which the hon. Member for Kidderminster has been talking.
    Sir D. Eccles: I am glad to have the opportunity to make this clear. I did not realise that skins for tanners were on the same footing as Indian cotton, a case which we discussed last time. Of course, it is quite correct that paragraph (b) excludes that form of assistance. The former Minister of State, Board of Trade. in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, made quite clear the reason for doing that. It is quite simple. We do it in this country with steel. It is a practice which is operated in the interests of large industries and we do not think that it would be wise to include it in our definition of a subsidy.
    However, if the tanners or leather manufacturers can bring a case to show that a definite protection subsidy has been paid on the skins used in that country. that is a different thing, but the Bill does not include
    "…the application of restrictions or charges on the export of materials from any country so as to favour producers in that country…
    Mr. Nabarro: The cases of steel and skins are not analogous in this context, but entirely different. For example, the French Government impose a ceiling price at which the skins may be sold, to create an artificial surplus and hence low prices. That artificial surplus may then be exported and dumped. I believe that such a contingency would come within the provisions of the Bill, notwithstanding the words which my right hon. Friend has just read. However, that is not the case with steel. We do not impose control on steel in this country in order to keep the price of steel artificially low.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Oh, yes, we do.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: Oh, no, we do not. If we did that by Government action, it would connote a loss in the sale of steel. We do not do that. We impose a control which facilitates steel being sold at the full economic prices. The fact that we happen to sell steel overseas at a premium, as we do in certain cases, has no bearing on the case. The imposition of a price ceiling to keep the price of skins artificially low and create a surplus, which is the French practice, and our imposing a maximum price at which steel may be sold, which is for general economic reasons, but certainly not to create a surplus, are entirely different matters.

    1051
    I am satisfied from what my right hon. Friend has said that the case of skins may well come within the provisions of the Bill. I propose to write to the United Tanners' Federation tomorrow morning, send to them a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and invite them to ask the President of the Board of Trade for further elucidation. Skins are not largely processed, neither is leather largely manufactured, in Kidderminster.
    Mr. Rhodes: We must get this matter clear. We have been told that the Bill excludes raw materials such as cotton from India and we have had it explained that that is because the same principle applies to steel and coal. We then had another explanation, that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was out of order, because it was lost on the Money Resolution, that the Ways and Means Resolution already prevented it coming before the Committee. Which reason is it? Is it the Ways and Means Committee decision?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: On a Bill which is introduced as the result of a Ways and Means Resolution, the Committee is bound by the terms of the Resolution. That is the technical reason why the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was out of order. If the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) wants to know why the Ways and Means Resolution was framed in that way, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-pool, North (Mr. Low), in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, which I quoted on Second Reading, referred to the practice in regard to the steel industry in this country as a reason why it was appropriate for us to limit our action in the Ways and Means Resolution in that way.
    Mr. Rhodes: Does it mean that the Indian cotton question, which has been raised here many times, cannot be considered in the context of the Bill? Let us have an answer to that. Can it or not?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: In case there should be the misconception that the Committee is in
    1052
    favour of incorporating Amendments which may be restrictive, I should like to support my right hon. Friend and to say that after long experience of this sort of thing it is my view that it would be very much better to leave the Bill as it is. If extra words are inserted, the lawyers will decide that something more must be left out. If the words are left as vague and as wide as possible, as they are now, in the end it will be better for all of us who have the same object in mind, the prevention of dumping and subsidisation of all kinds. The wider it is, the better.
    Mr. Cronin: I heard the speech of the President of the Board of Trade with some dismay. I gathered from what he said that he thought that his Department need not be cognisant of such matters as the rate of interest of countries overseas who exported goods to us. I was very surprised to hear that. I thought that the Board of Trade would watch these matters. It is discouraging to hear the right hon. Gentleman adopting this sort of lackadaisical attitude towards them. With the help of the Foreign Service he could have obtained this information quite easily. One wonders whether the Board of Trade will adopt the same slapdash attitude.
    I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the more vaguely the Bill is worded the better. In a few years' time High Court judges will have great difficulty in understanding what is intended by the Bill. They will read it with corrugated brows, and the only conclusion they will come to is that the right hon. Gentleman himself is not sure what is intended. Nevertheless, we have had an assurance that he will look into the matter and see whether he can clarify it further, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Before we part with the Clause I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some observations which I believe to be of extreme importance and relevance to our debates on the various Amendments. These observations were included in the Report of the Committee on Horticultural Marketing, which has just been published. I should like to quote a few sentences from

    1053
    a paragraph in page 126 of the Report. The Committee was precluded by its terms of reference from going in detail into the question whether or not there should be protection for horticulture, but it made a point of giving its views upon the relative merits of quotas and tariffs.
    In our discussion of one of the earlier Amendments I raised the question of the ease with which the quota method could be used to undercut the home market to a very considerable extent. In his reply the President of the Board of Trade did not comment upon this question. I gave an example of Italian pears coming in under quota, the quota being based upon current market prices. The quantity of pears imported could amount to as much as double what the permit for the quota would have entitled the exporters to send in. After that, the exporter in Italy is recouped by the placing of a higher price upon some other commodity which is not subject to quota restrictions. The transaction could go through completely outside the terms of the Bill and, as far as one knows, could never be brought within it under the discretionary powers which the Clause gives to the Board of Trade.
    That emphasises the truth of the statement made in the report of the Runciman Committee. In paragraph 503 it says:
    "For the reasons indicated, quotas are an unsuitable form of protection for horticultural commodities If, however, protection is by tariffs. the trade can adjust itself to them and yet still operate freely, and producers can be given reasonable certainty of the conditions under which the imports to the United Kingdom will be made."
    The penalty arising out of offences committed under the Clause will be by means of tariff, and I think that most of us believe that the tariff is probably the best weapon in the long run.
    I cannot allow the Clause to go through without making this comment upon what my right hon. Friend has said about the future. We must reconsider what we are going to do if and when the Bill becomes an Act, and if and when a European free trade area is set up. with a sort of inner circle of Messina Powers operating a common market. Whatever else we may say there is no question but that the offences specified in the Clause are of the utmost importance. I believe that the effectiveness of the Clause will depend entirely upon whether or not we are
    1054
    going to use it simply, as my hon. Friend said—using a very colourful metaphor during the Second Reading debate—as a notice saying, "Beware of the dog. He bites dumpers and subsidisers", or as a deliberate instrument of policy to try to deter.
    It is conceivable that if the Board of Trade were really vigorous in investigating the imports now coming in—with G.A.T.T. as it is—the Bill would give it power to deal effectively with the situation, but if it is to rely upon the Bill purely as a kind of longstop, only to be implemented with the greatest reluctance, it will not have the desired result. It certainly will be very far from adequate if and when a European free trade area is set up. For that reason I can only deplore, and ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider, what he said this afternoon about that part of our trade which is neither Commonwealth nor Empire.
    Unless we have the right to discriminate among the various sections of our trade we shall never have a hope of reaching that blessed state of prosperity with which the Liberal Party will be satisfied, when we can once more enjoy a policy of free trade.
    Mr. Boyd: As we are badly behind our time schedule I shall be as brief as I can. I ask the Minister to add one assurance to those which have already been given by him and the Minister of State. We have been told that the Government do not wish to use the power given by this Bill more than necessary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) to persuade him in this direction. So far, they have given assurances only of what one might describe as a negative type. They say that they will not use these powers unnecessarily.
    I invite the President of the Board of Trade to add that in cases where he is unable to prevent an unfair trade practice being used against this country and causing injury to an established source of supply he will not only use these powers but will then get in touch with the Government concerned and see whether he can negotiate arrangements which will enable him to dispense with the countervailing duties that he has found necessary. That is what I am after.

    1055
    the right hon. Gentleman has given what is virtually an undertaking to this effect regarding Commonwealth countries. He has made it clear that there will be Board of Trade examinations in detail immediately after establishing these countervailing duties, so that there will be quite a lot of work done by the Board of Trade in any case. I ask him to assure us that included in that examination will be an attempt in consultation with the Government of the country from which the dumped or subsidised goods are corning to see whether it is possible to devise arrangements which will make possible the scrapping of the countervailing duties.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ronald Russell: I wish to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend a matter which I heard of yesterday and which I consider important as it concerns the manufacture of building board in this country. There is a danger that the industry may face subsidised competition from overseas and that such competition may be subsidised in a manner which it will make it difficult to discover exactly where the subsidy is applied.
    Everyone knows that the main supplier of imported building board to this country is Sweden, although there are a number of other European countries from which we import it. I understand that part of the industry in Sweden, probably the greater part, is nationalised. There are a number of free enterprise firms which also operate, but the part which is nationalised includes not only the manufacture of the building board but the ownership of the forests from which the timber is obtained and the mills which process it. In fact, the whole operation is completely under Goverment control.
    Subsection (2, a) of this Clause would probably enable the Board of Trade to determine the fair market price of the goods in Sweden so long as there is some privately-owned industry operating on a free market. I gather that there is some danger—at least, hon. Members on this side of the Committee would consider it a danger—of the whole of the Swedish industry eventually being nationalised. In those circumstances, there may no longer be a free market on which the goods are sold in Sweden, and then it may prove difficult for my right hon.
    1056
    Friend to determine where the subsidy is being applied.
    Some of the building board imported into this country from Sweden is offered at a lower price than our manufacturers can quote. It is difficult for any firm in this country to find out where the Swedish subsidy is being applied, if there is a subsidy, or how they are being undercut by their nationalised Swedish competitors. This matter has been brought to my notice by a firm in my constituency which manufactures building board, but I do not think that it has been brought to the notice of the Building Board Manufacturers' Association. At any rate, I have not received any representations from the Association.
    I have been supplied by the Association with rather interesting figures of the production of building board in this country and that imported from abroad. Production in this country has increased steadily in the last five years. In the case of hardboard it has increased from 25 million square feet in 1952 to 56 million square feet last year, a very satisfactory rate of progress. Imports of hardboard have also risen steadily from 189 million square feet in 1953 to a maximum of 434 million in 1955. Then there appears to have been a fall off in 1956, although I have figures which relate only to the first eleven months. Possibly there is not much danger at present, but the point which interests the firm in my constituency is whether this Bill will protect the home industry from unfair competition from an industry in a country like Sweden, where it is nationalised, and where it may be difficult to discover exactly where a subsidy is applied.
    I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would examine this matter and see whether it is covered by the terms of the Bill, and whether, if the whole of the Swedish industry became nationalised it would still be covered. If not, would he consider amending the Bill accordingly?
    Mr. Ernest Thornton: I wish to express regret at the inclusion of the words in lines 28 to 31 of the Bill. They explicitly prevent any action being taken about what is probably the worst experience of any British industry in the post-war period regarding concealed subsidies. I refer to the problem of the imports of cotton grey cloth from India.

    1057
    As I said during the debate on the Second Reading, at one time this concealed subsidy represented as much as 25 per cent. of the price of the goods marketed here from India. That is competition which no British industry can face, and manifestly it is unfair. Yet, by including these words in Clause 2, the Government make clear that they do not intend to deal with the problem. This dual pricing of raw material is a growing practice and I believe that it will result in grave danger to us as a manufacturing country.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to the Kidderminster carpet industry and the competition from Belgium, which is based on cheap raw cotton. He is far more optimistic than I am if he thinks that there will be any action by the Government to deal with the case he has quoted. It is parallel with the problem of the Lancashire textile industry and Indian imports. The Lancashire textile industry has no tariff protection at all against India. At least the Kidderminster carpet industry has a tariff against Belgian imports.
    This is a practice which the United States is carrying out in reverse. They are exporting raw material at a lower price than it is sold to the domestic manufacturers. That, again, has brought problems in its train. The result is that Japan, with an efficient, low labour cost industry, is exporting cotton textiles to America based on lower-priced cotton than the American mill owners are using, and, in consequence, there have been threats by America to impose quotas or increase the tariffs on Japanese textiles. On the basis of that threat, the Japanese cotton employers have been obliged to get together with the American cotton employers and come to a quantitative and qualitative agreement about Japanese imports into America.
    We are being driven into the same pattern, and a mission from our industry has been to India and is in Hong Kong at the present time. This is a growing trend, and, I believe, a dangerous trend, so far as the long-term interests of this country are concerned. What happens by the inclusion of these words in this Bill is that it is made plain to the world at large that the Government consider dual pricing to be a fair trading practice. If we recognise it as such, I think that very serious
    1058
    consequences can flow from it for this country in future.
    Why does the Board of Trade want to deny itself the power to take action in flagrant cases of this kind? In effect, the Bill tells Lancashire, India and the world that if no agreement is reached the Government will do nothing about it, and that this practice can continue indefinitely. The President of the Board of Trade, in moving the Second Reading, referred, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has reminded the Committee, to the Bill being equivalent to the notice:
    "Beware of the Dog: He Bites Dumpers and Subsidisers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1457; Vol. 563, c. 63.]
    I would suggest that the intention of the President of the Board of Trade and the Government is that this Bill is likely to bite nobody and do nothing, so far as the Western world and the G.A.T.T. countries are concerned. As I interpreted his speech on Second Reading, the paramount purpose of the Bill is to protect the economy of this country against an economic offensive from the Iron Curtain countries. I am not criticising that action, but I do not think we ought to fool ourselves into believing that it is intended to use this Bill except against Iron Curtain countries.
    By the inclusion of these words, I suggest that the Iron Curtain countries are better able than any other countries in the world to take advantage of this Clause, and particularly of the words in lines 28 to 31, because they have completely controlled and managed economies, and they would be able to prove, if need be, that they are not subsidising in any respect, but are providing their raw materials to their own industries at cheaper prices and are, therefore, covered by this section of the Bill.
    I want to point out on this matter that we are now living in a world which is rapidly industrialising. Countries in Asia and Africa, which, since the industrial revolution in this country have been providers of raw materials, are now starting to industrialise on the pattern established and followed by the Soviet Union, and by China at present. This industrial transformation will be far more rapid in the second half of the twentieth century than it was in the first half. Let us remember that when these countries

    1059
    start to utilise their own raw materials, then quite probably there will be a shortage of raw materials, as far as established manufacturing countries are concerned, and that the United Kingdom will have a very raw deal in those circumstances.
    Let us make no mistake about it. A long-held theory has been exploded. We used to think that it took two, three or four generations to produce skilled workmen, technicians, scientists and industrial administrators, but we have now to note the fact—and we shall be foolish if we do not note it; we should not let our hatred of what happens over there close our eyes to these results—that in the Soviet Union it has been proved that within one generation these people can be produced.
    I want to remind the Committee that in the Soviet Union there are between 40 million and 50 million industrial workers who are in the hands of thousands of technicians, scientists and competent industrial administrators, and that more than half of these people are the sons of illiterate peasants. That process will take place in other Asiatic countries, in China in particular, and I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the policy of recognising as fair trading practice the dual pricing of raw materials is fraught with very grave danger as a long-term policy for this country.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): I wish to refer very briefly to two points and I ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider them.
    The first is that, by accepting the Opposition Amendment on the point of threatening material injury, we shall have the position that material injury will be threatened or may be threatened to established British industry, when in all the circumstances it will be in the national interest that something shall be done, but nothing need be done. The powers which the President may exercise are only permissive, and I think it is important that they should be obligatory, or that we should consider now whether or not it would be wise for them to be obligatory.
    1060
    We do not doubt the intention of the present Government or of the present President of the Board of Trade, but the great day may come when the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and his friends are the Government of the day, and they may not be so keen to act in that way. Therefore. I think that there should be a duty on the Board of Trade to take action when a clear case is established showing detriment to British industry.
    The second point has reference to subsection (3), to which a number of Amendments were put forward. I think that my right hon. Friend might possibly find that, if he sticks a little more closely to Article VI (2) of G.A.T.T., he will get more help there on the problem, which is admittedly a very difficult one. with which he is faced. There we are permitted to impose these countervailing duties on any product, and are permitted to impose a duty where the subsidy is applied directly or indirectly to any merchandise.
    It seems to me that that covers part of the problem of some of these raw materials cases, which are very difficult, and which have been explored by various hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I think that if the words used in G.A.T.T. are studied with that in view, they might help my right hon. Friend to meet some of the valid points that have been made.
    The Chairman: Sir John Barlow. If the hon. Gentleman cares to remain seated, in view of his recent accident, he may do so.
    Sir John Barlow: Thank you very much, Sir Charles, but I wish to make only a very brief speech.
    It seems to me that both sides of the Committee have this in common—that the opinion that the Bill should protect industry and workpeople in this country is strongly held. That is the great common unity between both sides of the Committee. In looking through this Bill, one wonders whether it has sufficient teeth in it, beginning with Clause 1, which we are at present discussing. We are looking into the question of dumping very late in the day. Other countries, such as Australia, South Africa and Canada, to mention only a few, initiated legislation thirty years ago, and, in practically every

    1061
    case, they found that it was not strong enough, and periodically had to pass further legislation to give it more teeth.
    I have here the Commonwealth Australian Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Acts of 1921 to 1936 and the Tariff Proposals, 1956, and I note that even last year several new sections were added to strengthen the hand of the Government to protect industry in Australia. I understand that the Government of South Africa have gone even further, and we know that the Canadian Government have adopted very strong measures indeed. Are we not starting where they started? Should we not start where they left off and take advantage of their experience? We may not want to go as far as they have gone, but I think that we should have the power.
    It is useless to have a Measure of this kind unless the President of the Board of Trade has complete power which he can use quickly. Quickness is the essence of the whole Bill. During the Second Reading debate I mentioned the isolated dumping of goods. I said that it was only too easy for certain types of goods to be imported, to be sold in the shops and consumed before the matter was brought to the attention of the Minister. That problem may present a real difficulty unless my right hon. Friend has strong powers to take action himself rather than being compelled to wait to hear the views of the manufacturer who has been injured, or the trade association.
    I urge my right hon. Friend to make this provision stronger than it is now. Following the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), wherein he criticised the Bill for not dealing with the difficulty of competition from Indian cottons, it seems extraordinary to me that my right hon. Friend should indicate that the difficulty about skins will come within the ambit of the Bill, whereas competition from India of a similar kind apparently will not. It seems to me that the two cases are very similar, and I am sure that Lancashire will want to know exactly why Indian cotton is excluded when skins are included.
    I wish to refer briefly to the question of a "fair market price" which is mentioned several times in subsection (2). I came across an example a few years ago where country A had exported textiles to
    1062
    country B and was selling them at the same price in both countries, according to the official figures. It was found, however, that the original selling country A sold a small quantity of goods at a cheap price—the same as the dumped price— but sold the majority of the goods in the home country at a very much higher price. Will the Clause catch a sale of that kind? Perhaps 5 per cent. of the goods were sold at the lower price, but the majority were sold at a far higher figure.
    There is in the Clause a reference to the "national interest". Can my right hon. Friend clarify what he means by those words? I think that I know what he may mean, but it might be very different if, in years to come, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) became President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Bolton, West might think that it was in the national interest to encourage the sale of cheap goods. because it would help the consumers and keep the cost of living down, irrespective of the fact that it might destroy whole industries. Different holders of the office which is now held by my right hon. Friend might interpret these words very differently. I should like to know what protection we have.
    Sir D. Eccles: It is quite clear from the speeches which have been made that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are much concerned about the Bill. It is a departure for us to have powers of this kind, and I should like to repeat that they are aimed only at unfair practices and are not intended to give additional protection.
    It might be right, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has suggested, to consider the degree of protection that the horticultural industry has, but under this Bill that industry can be helped only in circumstances where either dumping or subsidies have been proved. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is certainly my view, which I think will be held everywhere, that horticulture is a separate industry. We should certainly consider it so. Indeed, I think that we shall have to interpret the word "industry" fairly widely when considering material damage. There might be one particular class of goods dumped here

    1063
    which really injured only one manufacturer, but if it really injured him we should take action. I should hope that I should be allowed under this Bill to go fairly wide on that.
    I will not follow what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the prospects of the European free trade area. I have no doubt that another opportunity will occur for a debate on that subject.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd) reminded me that I had said on Second Reading that we would consult Commonwealth countries before using the powers in the Bill against any goods originating in those territories. He asked whether we would do the same in the case of foreign countries. I cannot give a complete assurance, because it might well be that it would be better to talk to the foreign countries through our representatives abroad rather than here. I will certainly try to negotiate that they should stop the practice, because it is far better for all concerned, but I am not prepared to give an assurance that I will warn every country throughout the whole world before we take action. If I did I should very likely destroy the power of speedy action which in connection with certain countries—I should not like to mention names—may be far and away the best chance we have of stopping dumping.
    Mr. Boyd: May I explain that I did not mean to ask so much as that any Government should be consulted before we took the necessary action? I can appreciate that many countries outside the Commonwealth might well drag out the negotiations, and we could not afford to await action until we had had discussions with them. I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that when these countervailing duties have been imposed, efforts would be made to use them rather as a bargaining lever to get the dumping or subsidising abolished instead of our being content simply to leave the countervailing duties on.
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir D. Eccles: Each case would have to be looked at on its merits. I was thinking that in the general run of case it would be to our advantage to bargain and get the practice stopped at the source, in which case we would remove the duty.
    1064
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) mentioned building boards imported from Sweden and asked whether, if the manufacturing industry of that country became nationalised, the provisions of the Bill could be used if it were found that a subsidy had been paid. The answer is "Yes." Of course, it is extremely difficult to know how much subsidy. I mentioned on Second Reading that the more Socialist the economy is the easier it is for the Government concerned to infiltrate into other countries by all kinds of evil practices. It is difficult to say to what degree the products of any nationalised industry have been subsidised. If this is a case which my hon. Friend would like the Board of Trade to look at in detail we should be very glad to do so.
    The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton)—I well understand him—said he was sorry that lines 28 to 31 were in the Clause. We have reason for them. I can only say that in the case of Indian cotton the mission is there trying to come to an agreement for placing an upper limit on the export from India to this country. We must all hope that it will come back successful. It is very difficult to put duties on goods from Commonwealth countries where the form of assistance is an export control of a kind which we practise ourselves.
    My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) wished the powers to be mandatory. From the bargaining point of view it is probably better to leave them permissive. There is a great deal of judgment used in these questions. It is a matter of relying on judgment in many cases, for example, to decide how much subsidy is attributable to a certain consignment of goods. It will now be a matter of judgment, in the case of member countries of G.A.T.T., whether material injury has been done to an established source of supply. Where so many questions of that kind have to be decided it is better to leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade as a weapon that can be used when it is thought to be clear that an advantage can be secured.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), who gallantly made a speech despite his injury which we all hope will soon mend,

    1065
    thought we were taking these powers very late in the day, and wondered whether they were sufficiently strong to enable us to take speedy and effective action. I think that they are. As soon as an allegation is made of dumping or subsidy, we can come to the House for an Order asking for a duty. There are provisions in the Bill for the repayment of the duty if we make a mistake. That is precisely because we wish to take action without going into a very detailed examination which would stultify the good that the Bill could do.
    I am afraid that my hon. Friend was wrong in saying that skins for leather manufacturers were caught by the Bill, whereas Indian cotton was not. As I understood the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the skins would not come under the Bill any more than would the Indian grey cloth. My hon. Friend asked me whether, if a small proportion of the supply of a certain article were sold at a very cheap price in the country of origin in order to establish a low price, whereas the bulk of the supply was sold at a higher price, we would have regard to the small parcel at the cheap price. The answer is "No." We shall have power to ascertain the normal, regular price at which the particular kind of goods is sold.
    Finally, my hon. Friend asked the old question, What does "national interest" mean? I have always understood that "national interest" means what Her Majesty's Government think that it means at any particular moment. There is really no other way of defining the national interest. Luckily, both sides of the Committee know pretty well what we mean by it in a broad way, but it is not possible to define it in a Bill.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The Rent Bill is not in the national interest, then?
    Sir D. Eccles: It may be that I have made some slight mistake on some point here, but I am new to the Bill, as most hon. Members are aware. If so, I will put it right on some other Amendment. I hope that I have answered the questions raised, and that the Committee will now let us have the Clause.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance on the particular point that I raised about the quota
    1066
    and say whether avoidance of the quota might be caught by Clause 1 (2, a)? Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter before Report, because it is rather important. It would be a good thing to cover the practice by the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(ORDERS IMPOSING DUTIES.)
    Mr. Remnant: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, after "charged", to insert:
    "on all such goods from the date of complaint to or investigation by, the Board of Trade".
    Certain speeches on Clause 1 and on some of the Amendments to it appeared to be relevant to this Amendment, so perhaps I might be even briefer with this speech than I intended to be. The objects of the Amendment are twofold: exploratory as to the meaning of the paragraph (c) and to show the alarm felt by industries at what they at present understand to be its meaning.
    The first part of paragraph (c) refers to
    "provisions directing that duty be charged for any period or periods."
    What exactly does my right hon. Friend mean by "for any period"? It is obvious that an appreciable amount of time must elapse after the original objection or allegation of dumping for the Board of Trade to check figures, and that much may happen in that short time. If the Amendment is inserted, or if the words "for any period" enable my right hon. Friend to backdate the Order to achieve the object sought by the Amendment, I shall be very happy to have an answer to that effect.
    Let me give the sort of difficulty and the reasons for delay that I foresee. Who is to lodge the objection? Suppose there are importers, perhaps in a small way, who are not members of their association. Are they to be allowed to lodge an objection or an allegation of dumping with my right hon. Friend, or can these representations come only, as in certain other cases, through an association.
    Does my right hon. Friend intend to rely on the Customs? If that be the case the suggested provision that the document should include the average domestic price in the country of origin

    1067
    would at least make known what was happening, although, obviously, those figures would need checking by the Customs or by my right hon. Friend's Department. Nevertheless, if these duties are to have a deterrent effect—I am sure my right hon. Friend does not wish to use them unless they are necessary—the mere fact of his having power to backdate any duty decided upon would obviously make an intending importer of goods below the corresponding price in the country of origin think twice before he did so.
    There are two types of dumping that I have particularly in mind. I will refer to them as rush dumping and intermittent dumping. There was a very good example of rush dumping last year over new potatoes from France, which, I believe, were referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). When it was seen that there was a chance to dump goods in this country quick action was taken by the French Government to take advantage of the opportunity offered. The damage done by that kind of thing does not end when the actual dumping stops, but proceeds into the future planting and production of potatoes.
    Intermittent dumping is where the exporter from the other country, certainly in collusion with the importer in this country, seeks to slip two or three shipments of varying sizes in before anyone has awakened to what is happening. Over a year that can have a most unsettling effect, but, if it is known that the Board of Trade is likely to make a retrospective duty on those goods, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that not only would the dumper hesitate but may think the game not worth the candle. In these few remarks, to which I add every emphasis at my command, I commend this Amendment to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. J. Grimston: I wish to support entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) has said. There is a very widespread feeling in industry that the investigation of a complaint into dumping may be protracted not be cause the Board of Trade is not keen to get on with the investigation, but because the Board finds it extremely difficult to get information to arrive at a
    1068
    proper answer. The dismay which industry feels at the possibility of delay would be greatly alleviated if words of this kind were accepted and if it could be made quite clear that obstruction on the part of the dumper would not enable him to escape the duty he would otherwise have to pay.
    7.15 p.m.
    Captain Duncan: This is the moment to say what I want to say on this subject, although I could have delayed doing so until we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) in the contention that speed is essential in the apprehension and prevention of dumping. We are not completely satisfied about the apparent contradiction between the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading and the speech of the Minister of State on that occasion. The President seemed to contemplate speedy action when it was necessary. In the Second Reading debate, the President said:
    "This is what would happen. Someone would lodge a complaint with the Board of Trade that goods were being imported at unfair prices and were likely to injure one of our sources of supply. I should add that the Board could take the initiative itself under this Bill. I doubt if it would do it very often, but it could. However the process was started, the Board would urgently consider whether a prima facie case had been made out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 61.]
    I do not want to speak for long, otherwise I would quote more of that speech. The Minister of State said:
    "The procedure that one would contemplate under the Bill would be something like the following. First, the industry or company affected would make an application to the Board of Trade asking for an order in regard to a specific matter. The Board of Trade would then furnish it with a document showing the relevant data to be established by the industry according to the criteria specified in the Act. The complainant would then assemble his evidence and submit it to the Board of Trade. It would then be for the Board of Trade to decide, first, whether a prima facie case of dumping had been established, and, secondly, whether there was any evidence of material injury which, as I have explained. would, in the case of G.A.T.T. countries, still be relevant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 120.]
    There seemed to be a possible divergence of opinion in the Board of Trade. I do not think that there is a divergence, but I want an assurance from my right

    1069
    hon. Friend that there is not and that it is clearly understood by the Board of Trade that there will be cases, particularly in the horticultural industry, in which speed will be of the essence.
    I think it was I, not my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who quoted the case of the French new potatoes last year. The fact that they were imported at that time completely upset the new potato market for the home grower. There was also the case of imported tomatoes, a year or two ago. The Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board made urgent representations to the Board of Trade and action was taken under the powers which then existed.
    I am told that in Spain today there is a potential production of over 2 million tons of tomatoes. If the Spaniards saw a chance of exporting tomatoes to this country at 1s. a lb. below our own costs, which might well be below the market price of tomatoes sold in Spain, they would do so. If they did, even under the existing tariff rate, it would be quite impossible for our tomato growers to make a living in this country. There would be material injury to an industry.
    I give those two examples to show what might happen in future if the Board of Trade did not act speedily. if it waited to run through the process described by the Minister of State, the industry would be ruined before action was taken. Therefore, I ask that speed should be regarded by the Board of Trade as important and that the Board itself, particularly in the case of the horticultural industry, will take action without waiting for a complaint to be made.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) straight away that there neither was on Second Reading nor has been at any time any inconsistency between the views put forward by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself. I also assure him that in asking for speed he is knocking at an open door because, as both of us said on 22nd January, and have reiterated in the course of today's proceedings, we are fully conscious of the necessity for speed and efficacy in the procedures of the Bill. I will in a moment deal in a little more detail with the points which my hon. and gallant Friend made.
    1070
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) asked me two questions of interpretation which perhaps I should answer first. He asked whether, as a matter of interpretation, the words "for any period" in Clause 2 (3, c) permitted retrospection beyond the date of the Order. The answer to that as a matter of construction is no, it does not. He also asked me whether it was open to individual members or traders to make application for an Order, or whether such right was confined to trade associations. The answer to that is that individual members may make such application and that this right is in no sense restricted to trade associations.
    My hon. Friend explained that his motive in moving the Amendment was partly exploratory and partly to voice certain apprehensions felt by industry about urgent cases. The remedy which his Amendment suggests is that of substituting the date of complaint or investigation for the date of the Order as the starting point for the operation of the duty. It would not necessarily be a precise or easily identifiable date which he has in mind, but it would certainly be a retrospective date.
    There are two main objections to retrospection, one in principle and the other of a practical nature. I do not think that in this Committee I need elaborate on the objections in principle to retrospective taxation, for I am sure that my hon. Friends would be the first to accept that retrospection in taxation is a bad principle. The practical difficulties are these: first, the effect on general trade would be out of proportion. This is an important but, we hope, exceptional procedure. If the Committee were to adopt the Amendment and the principle of retrospection we should have this position: as soon as a complaint is made--and we have to bear in mind that these complaints may be frivolous in some cases—the importers of the whole of that range of goods are immediately put at risk of a retrospective duty undefined both in amount and time. That is a very grave objection as this might affect the whole of our general trade.
    The second practical difficulty is that Customs cannot collect the duty retrospectively on consignments on which no additional payment has been made at the time of importation. In other words, the

    1071
    precise method contemplated by the Amendment is not capable of practical operation. The Board, to give effect to this Amendment, would have to make a provisional Order specifying a provisional rate of duty which would have to be collected at the time of importation and which would be subject to later adjustment under Clause 3 on the conclusion of the investigation.
    Mr. Remnant: Would not an alternative method be the employment of the surety bond covered by insurance?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly consider whether it would be a possible alternative to the provisional rate of duty which, I understand from that further suggestion, my hon. Friend thinks would not be a convenient method. My information is that from the Customs' point of view they would not find it easy and probably not find it practicable to operate a retrospective scheme of this sort; that is, of course, apart from the general objection to the principle of retrospection.
    I ask my hon. Friend to have in mind that the recognition of the need for speed, especially in certain cases, does away with the necessity for a complicated retrospective provision of this sort. We fully accept the need for speed and the need for a proper defence against forestalling in appropriate cases. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus quoted a part of what I said in this context on Second Reading on 22nd January. I was then indicating what would be the normal procedure where we had an application for a duty in what might be called a new matter, in which the Board had to make its decision on questions about which it has to be satisfied under Clause 1.
    I then said this, as reported in column 122 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
    "In that context, and many other contexts, speed is of the essence."
    I used the same words then as my hon. and gallant Friend has used today.
    "One has to bear in mind that if one has an elaborate procedure to assist the Board of Trade the procedure is slower, and the slower the procedure, the greater the risk of forestalling. What we have really tried to do here is to seek the highest common factor of a reasonable maximum speed to prevent forestalling with a fair and thorough examination of the issues."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 122.]
    Captain Duncan: That is the bit I do not like.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. and gallant Friend is frank enough to say that it is that bit which he does not like. It is not an uncommon experience that litigants feel that the part of the case which is devoted to the evidence of the other side is in the nature of a waste of the time of the court. I was dealing with this procedure and with the general case, but the principle which I there enunciated is in no way incompatible with the power of the Board of Trade to make an Order at once if a strong prima facie case is made out sufficient to satisfy the Board under Clause 1; and in those cases the detailed investigation can be completed after the making of the Order.
    Where the type of dumping is new, I think that the Committee will agree that the time factor must obviously take account of the necessity for a thorough examination; but, of course, some of the cases which have been referred to are not new cases in any real sense of the word. A good many types of dumping are recognisable as old acquaintances, although perhaps it would be an abuse of language in this context to call them old friends; they are recognisable as methods which we have met before.
    My hon. and gallant Friend made special reference to the horticultural industry, to which I also referred on Second Reading. It was very appropriate that I should, as part of the horticultural industry is in my constituency. Where dumping is regular and seasonal, as it may be in the horticultural industry, then the Board of Trade could, for example, make an Order coming into force automatically every year at the relevant time if it appeared that dumping had been occurring at those times in those industries in previous years. In effect, therefore, the evidence of past practice would to some extent shift the onus on to the importers. The importers would not, I think, be prejudiced, because in a proper case they would then be able to go for relief under Clause 3 if they could establish that they were entitled to it.
    I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate that we are fully seized of the necessity for speed and effective action; and that in the methods that I have sought

    1073
    to spell out we could attain that in a way which is more compatible with our normal taxation principles than by introducing the principle of retrospection.
    Mr. Remnant: May I thank my right hon. and [earned Friend for the assurance he as given, which, I am sure, will do much to dispel the apprehensions of traders? I know that we can rely on him to keep his eye on the problem so long as he is at the Board of Trade. We are content to leave the future in his hands. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sydney Irving: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30. at the end to add:
    (6) The Board shall on the thirty-first day of December in each year make to the President of the Board a report on the effect of every order made under this section which has been in force during the year to which the report relates and the President shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
    From this side of the Committee we have given general support to the Bill because we believe that the President should have the powers to deal with unfair trading arising from dumping and subsidies. We also believe that he ought to use those powers speedily and effectively where required, but what we do not wish to see is this Measure becoming one of general protection.
    The Amendment arises out of the fear that once a duty has been imposed it will stay long after the circumstances which justified it have changed. I am aware that Clause 3 allows an importer to claim relief, but he must do that within three months, and he is also under a penalty under a subsequent subsection. We believe that there should be some further obligation on the Board to keep under continuous review all the Orders that have been made.
    The Bill makes no provision for regular review and makes only an indirect reference to cancellations and revocations. I think it was the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) who explained how difficult it might be for the Board of Trade to make the necessary examinations in the first place, and we believe that it is quite obvious that industries themselves who are enjoying
    1074
    protection will not rush forward as soon as the circumstances have changed to ask for that protection to be taken off.
    Therefore, we are asking that each year, as with effect from 31st December, a report shall be laid before Parliament giving the effect of every Order that has been outstanding in that year. In that way, the Board would be required to keep under continuous review all the Orders to see whether any of them could still be justified, and it would allow hon. Members an opportunity of debating those Orders and seeking perhaps to annul them if they felt that that was necessary.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have much sympathy with the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving), who moved the Amendment. We have in this Bill tried always to make the operations of the Board of Trade subject to the control of Parliament, and I certainly do not dissent from his desire that Parliament should have an appropriate report presented to it. Therefore, in principle, we are certainly willing to accept the Amendment.
    I should, however, explain that it would not be possible, with the best will in the world, to accept the form of words contained in the Amendment. They would require the Board to make a report to the President of the Board who, in turn, would lay it before Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 10 of the Bill, he will see that
    "Anything required or authorised by or under this Act to be done by…the Board of Trade, may he done by…the President of the Board,…"
    and certain other named functionaries.
    That being so, the effect of this Amendment would be to make the President report to himself, which clearly is not quite an appropriate proceeding. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment—and, as I say, we accept the principle of an annual report—we will put down an appropriate Amendment on Report stage, embodying in appropriate language the principle which he wishes to achieve.
    Mr. Irving: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting the substance of my Amendment, and I shall be happy to withdraw

    1075
    it on those terms. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES.)
    Mr. Richard Fort: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out from "Act" to the first "they" in line 34.
    I put this rather small point in order to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say about the proposal slightly to widen the Clause in order that relief can be given with regard to countervailing duties as well as in respect of antidumping duties. Dumping can apply to particular consignments of goods, while the subsidies may apply to the classes or type of goods included in many consignments. I think that the effect of allowing these words to be removed from the Clause will be to allow the countervailing duties to be considered as well as the antidumping duties.
    What I am saying accords with what I shall be saying later on a new Clause which I shall attempt to introduce, because I think that there may be the possibility of wrong decisions being given in the case of many consignments and correspondingly the need for a rather better appeal procedure than the Bill has in it at present. I should like to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say about including countervailing duties.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend has explained that the intention of this Amendment is to make Clause 3 give relief, where appropriate, in respect of countervailing duties, in addition to the anti-dumping duties to which the Clause is limited as at present drafted. I would say at once that I am certainly not out of sympathy with his general intention. I use the term "general intention" because I refer to the intended effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment, rather than the effect which I think it achieves. His Amendment is clearly technically defective. I do not want to make any point about that except to show in a moment that it is very difficult to get a
    1076
    form of words which will give appropriate effect to the intention which he has in mind. It is for that reason, as I am sure he will appreciate, and not from any preoccupation with technical or drafting matters that I make this point at once.
    The form of the Amendment does not, in fact, fit the pattern and structure of Clause 3, because that Clause has been framed so as to deal with the dumping side of the two matters with which this Bill is primarily concerned. Perhaps I may give an illustration of that. Subsection (3) of the Clause refers to the export price of the goods and the fair market price as one of the matters to be taken into account. That, as the Committee is aware, is a criterion which applies to dumping, and not to the subsidy side which my hon. Friend wishes to include in the ambit of this Clause.
    The Clause has been framed on this principle of confining relief to dumping duties broadly because dumping is a matter within the power of individuals and therefore varies from case to case; and because the dumping itself varies, it is appropriate that the relief should be a matter of individual assessment, which is what Clause 3 is concerned with. A subsidy, on the other hand, is normally a known and defined practice, and for that reason it is more appropriate that relief should be given in general terms. My hon. Friend did not refer to this, but if he will be good enough to look at Clause 2 (3, d) he will see there the procedure for relief in the case of countervailing duties on subsidies to be specified in the Order, as a more general way of dealing with the more general subject of subsidies.
    The criteria which are given in Clause 3 as governing the question of relief from anti-dumping duties are, of course, very apt in the case of those duties, because they are the criteria which have to be satisfied to establish a case of dumping at all; but, unfortunately, they do not fit the case of subsidies. In other words, we cannot apply those simple and sufficient rules to subsidies. We cannot, therefore, give the same effective guidance for the ascertainment of whether a claim for relief has been made out in the case of a countervailing duty on subsidies as we are able to do in this Clause in respect of relief from anti-dumping duties.

    1077
    That is the basic difficulty in regard to this matter. There is, however, the further difficulty that it is not possible to test the accuracy of a claim by a foreign manufacturer that, although he has received a subsidy, it has not, in fact, affected his export price. We have no real means of checking such a claim.
    In those circumstances, I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be appropriate or helpful—or, indeed, possible—to accept the Amendment which he has moved in such temperate terms; but, as I say, both my right hon. Friend and I sympathise with the desire to have some machinery for relief, in proper cases, from these countervailing duties in respect of subsidies. That being so, I would certainly give the matter further consideration between now and the Report stage. In saying that, however, I should make it clear that I think that, perhaps, the ball is now in the court of my hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens), in whose name this Amendment stands.
    7.45 p.m.
    I have outlined the difficulties which we see in getting any criteria to fit this particular case in order to put it into the Statute. If my hon. Friends can be of help in that respect, and can suggest any appropriate criteria, then, as I say, we are by no means hostile to the principle and will be glad to incorporate a suitable form of words for a suggested Amendment when we reach the Report stage of this Bill.
    Mr. Fort: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his expectedly lucid exposition of this rather complicated point. Perhaps he and I and our hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) could get together, as he suggests, to see what we can work out.
    Mr. Walker-Smith Mr. Walker-Smith indicated assent.
    Mr. Fort: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Sydney Irving: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out "three" and to insert "six".
    As time is running a little short, I will say what I have to say in a couple of
    1078
    sentences. In moving a previous Amendment I conceded that some of the information coming to the Board of Trade must come from the importers claiming relief under Clause 3. To us, three months seems very inflexible, and we therefore suggest that the period should be extended to six months.
    Sir D. Eccles: I can accept this Amendment, as I think it will improve the Bill. We have been told by importers' representatives that they think that the three months is rather too short. Therefore, we are very ready to see it made six months.
    Mr. Irving: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(POWER TO REQUIRE INFORMA-TION FROM IMPORTERS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Fort: The one general point I want to make on this Clause is really to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on an earlier Clause—the need for speed if effective action is to be taken against dumping. As I read it, Clause 5 (2) does not give to the Board of Trade the power to collect the price information which is necessary for speedy action. I know that it is argued that if there is introduced into this Measure arrangements such as those contained in the United States, Canadian and other antidumping Acts, there is great danger of retaliation. In consequence, as I understand. reliance is placed on the trades which are complaining about dumping to provide the information needed to determine the domestic prices, a point which my right hon. Friend indicated earlier this afternoon.
    In one of the industries which is extremely important in my constituency, the weaving of man-made fibres of all sorts, it is felt that the powers contained in Clause 5 (2) are really inadequate for proving dumping, even to establish a prima facie case. What I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider, when we come to the Report stage, is the putting

    1079
    down of an Amendment which would give him permissive powers to demand price declarations where a prima facie case has been shown to his satisfaction, as proved by the issuing of an Order. The Minister may have some more practical administrative advice for collecting information about prices, which undoubtedly he ought to have if there is to be effective and speedy implementation of this Measure.
    Mr. Rhodes: I wish to supplement what has been said by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). In previous Clauses we have discussed provisions about dumping and subsidies and we have now reached the point where we can make the Bill effective if we put some teeth into it. As the Bill stands it will be far too difficult for an aggrieved trade or firm to prove that dumping is taking place, so we shall need something more than we have in the Bill.
    The powers which the Treasury will have under this Measure do not go far enough and I would like to see them augmented during the Report stage. Without the ability to examine books, I do not think that the Bill will be very effective. Where there is such legislation in any other country I know of, such provision is made. For instance, there are officials in London connected with the United States, Canadian, South African and several other embassies, to whom exporters from this country take their books and prove that dumping is not taking place by a comparison between the prices charged for goods to be sent abroad and goods for circulation in the home market.
    I will not detain the Committee any longer, but will merely stake a claim at this juncture for putting down an Amendment on Report.
    Mr. Alan Green: I wish briefly to reinforce the plea made for a more explicit power for the Board of Trade to determine the facts speedily as to whether dumping has taken place or not. I am sure that unless these powers are put into the Bill later, the Board of Trade will have more trouble with home manufacturers chasing hares that are very difficult to catch than will be the case if those powers are not given to it for the general reasons which will be given to us —and good reasons they are—why those
    1080
    powers should not be given to it at this stage.
    I appreciate that it is difficult to change the layout of the invoices which the Customs and Excise have to scan at present. However, it will be much more difficult to withstand the pleas of home manufacturers who, under this Bill, have no particular point on which they can pin down their dumper. The Board of Trade itself will find the same difficulty unless it is given specific powers to ensure that the exporter from a foreign country must declare at call, if not before call, his current home market price.
    I ask my right hon. Friend to consider, therefore, whether on Report he cannot merely make this deterrent, but make it appear to be a deterrent on the lines that good government should act, because good government should appear to be good as well as being good. Then this Bill will achieve its purpose.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friends the Members for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and Preston, South (Mr. Green) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) together present a formidable accumulation of experience and knowledge on the difficult subject on which we are engaged tonight. I need not tell them or the Committee that my right hon. Friend and I will weigh carefully all the suggestions which they have been good enough to make.
    The problem here is how far we can get the maximum amount of information which will be at once reliable and capable of being obtained sufficiently quickly to operate this Measure in the speedy and efficacious manner which, as my right hon. Friend and I have reiterated again today—having said so originally on the Second Reading of this Bill —we also believe to be vital for its success.
    There are, however, certain difficulties in adopting the methods put forward in the course of the discussion on this Clause. The basic difficulty about incorporating into these Customs requirements a declaration by the importers of the information supplied by the exporters is that it would be a bare declaration which there would be no method of checking. It would, in effect, be a hearsay statement on the part of the importer of what

    1081
    he has been told by the exporter. Unfortunately, we have no corps of inspectors who would be able to check such declarations in the overseas countries from which the information comes, and where it will have to be checked if checked it is to be. The alternative to that is to accept every declaration at its face value, which would probably not be a reliable method of operating this system.
    The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the practice of some countries in getting the information through their representatives in those overseas countries. I know that he will appreciate, with his experience of these matters, that the countries which do that are the countries which operate their ordinary tariff machinery on that basis; that is to say, the countries which require a statement of current domestic value in the other country in connection with their anti-dumping legislation are those relatively few countries whose tariff valuation law depends on that criterion.
    Our tariff valuation in this country does not depend on the criterion of current domestic value in the other country, but on the price which goods would fetch on sale in the open market at the time of importation. In other words, our criterion requires a valuation in these shores and not in the country from which the article is imported.
    Mr. Rhodes: That may be so, but the answer we would get would be the one we want. If we were able to examine the books in another country and could see what were the comparable prices of the same material going into the home trade, we would get the information we want. It does not really matter whether it is the same tariff structure as the U.S.A. or not. So I suggest that the Minister might consider that point between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: We will certainly consider it, but the point I was seeking to make was the following. We would have to establish special machinery for dealing with this one thing within the relatively narrow, though important, context of this anti-dumping legislation.
    8.0 p.m.
    The countries which do that checking are countries which, in any event, have the machinery and personnel stationed
    1082
    abroad in the ordinary course of their valuation for their own tariff machinery. That is the difference between our position and theirs, and that is why it would be a much bigger administrative exercise on the part of this country to try to adopt a similar procedure. It would be wrong of me to minimise the difficulties which would face us in trying to set up any such machinery in this country.
    As my right hon. Friend has said, we have not had very long since Second Reading to consider these matters in detail, and we will certainly consider what has been said, but it would be wrong of me to hold out unduly high hopes having regard to these difficulties and to the difference between our position and that of the other countries to which reference has been made.
    Mr. Fort: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend has exaggerated the administrative difficulties. I should have thought that all that would be needed was a very occasional check in some outrageous case, which could well be undertaken by the ordinary commercial staffs in our embassies abroad, who are, to my certain knowledge, constantly informing themselves about domestic prices.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not seek to exaggerate the administrative difficulties. What I was saying was that our position is necessarily different from that of other countries which have, in any event, the personnel to do the checking because they are checking for tariff purposes. I will certainly give consideration to what would be involved, but I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend or to raise his expectations higher than the circumstances warrant.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF EXPORT PRICE.)
    Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, after "other", to insert:
    ",and the Board of Trade are satisfied as to that fact, as to the price on that sale and as to such other facts as are material for this purpose".
    This Amendment is in line with the debates that we have just been having. It is designed to give us, in this case in respect of the export price of goods, a

    1083
    little more elbow room in whether or not the goods have been dumped.
    There may be cases where there has been a sale on the open market between a buyer and a seller as described in the subsection which we seek to amend, but it may be very difficult to get the facts. Rather than take much wider powers of the kind that some hon. Members were a moment or two ago asking us to take, and compel importers to give a great deal of information which might or might not be checkable in the country concerned, we believe it to be better to add to the subsection the words on the Notice Paper so that we can use the powers in subsection (3) when we are satisfied that the various facts in subsection (2) have not been established.
    This is a small Amendment, but it will make it a little easier for the Board of Trade to get at the export price.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF FAIR MARKET PRICE.)
    Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, after "question," to insert:
    "(that is to say, any identical or comparable goods)."
    The Clause refers to methods by which we can ascertain the fair market price. We think it is possible that someone in the country of origin might vary just a little the construction of an article or alter it a little in some way so that it could be exported and it would be difficult for us to establish a comparable sale. If the Committee will agree to the insertion of these words, we need not look for an article which is 100 per cent. the same as the one which has been exported to this country. A very small variation will still allow us to determine the fair market price.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Clause 7, page 6, line 12, leave out "the like" and insert "that."—[Sir D. Eccles.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8.—(CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, ETC.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Sir Ian Horobin: The Clause relates to an important matter. On a previous Clause we dealt, in effect, with certificates of origin where, in a general sense, there is some suggestion of fraud or incorrectness. Here we are dealing with problems arising from certificates of origin where there is no question of their concealment or anything of that sort, but where, in some cases, very great damage is done to the home trade by what is, in effect, a legal evasion. I have not tabled an Amendment, because this is a highly difficult subject. It would be almost impossible for anyone but the Department to draft an Amendment if one were required. If one were needed, it would have to be brought forward by the Government on Report, or in another place.
    There are a number of places, in particular Japan, from where, for reasons which we need not go into, it is illegal under other provisions to import certain articles, including light engineering articles, some of which are represented in my constituency, such as sewing machines. We need not argue whether those provisions are right or wrong—personally, I am an unrepentant believer in keeping trade as free as possible—but I believe that everybody will agree that if, for reasons good or bad, the importation of certain articles into this country from another specified country has been declared to be illegal and stopped, people should not be allowed to import them by a mere evasion, legal though it may be, of the certificate of origin provision.
    The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and I both have knowledge of the sort of thing that happens. We find advertisements appearing, quite openly, in the Press—I have submitted certain of them to the Department —saying, for instance, that Japanese sewing machines are being imported provided with a certificate of origin in, for instance, Holland. That sounds almost incredible, but it happens. This sort of thing is being done on a large scale from Northern Ireland. The persons concerned are perfectly open about it. There is no

    1085
    question of concealment, and Clause 5 would not come into it.
    These people are able to take advantage of the 25 per cent. provision. It is normally done by simply putting an attachment on the article. These people obtain, for instance, a sewing machine, which—I will not go into the reasons—it is forbidden to import into this country from Japan, and they attach to it a small motor. This motor can be detached quite easily if one does not want it, or if one prefers to replace it by a British motor. However, it enables advantage to be taken of the 25 per cent. provision. The article is then stated to have a certificate of origin from Holland or Northern Ireland. If we are to get into a free European market, as I hope we shall, the possibilities become obvious to every hon. Member.
    I ask the President of the Board of Trade to look very seriously into this matter. It is comparable to some of those legal evasions of taxation of which we all know. It will become known on a large scale, because it is money for jam, but it puts the merchant and the producer who are playing the game at an impossible disadvantage in competition which Parliament, for one reason or another, has decided should not be tolerated. I do not need to occupy the time of the Committee with giving many examples of this, as I could, but it is a very serious problem which the Board of Trade should consider before the Bill is passed, to make sure that a certificate of origin is a certificate of origin and not a certificate of non-origin.
    Mr. Rhodes: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) has said. This is an important matter, but I will content myself with asking one or two questions. If the Bill cannot be amended at a subsequent stage to give us what we want, could the result be achieved by an Order in Council on the separate occasions when it is needed? Trouble will arise on this issue if we neglect to do something about it during the passage of the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, East mentioned some of the things that could happen. There could be confusion with Hong Kong prints processed in this country and then exported into the European free trade area, thus sabotaging
    1086
    everything we want to see in this new movement towards a common market. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to see what can be done about this before the Bill is passed. If it cannot be done by an Amendment, will he consider whether it cannot be done separately, as occasion demands, by an Order in Council?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) observed, this is a complicated matter. He has been good enough to send us details about the sewing machines question which we are now studying. He has raised the problem mainly in the context of Imperial Preference, which is also concerned with the certificate of origin and this 25 per cent. rule. It is an intricate point and does not really fall within the ambit of the Bill; but I will certainly be happy to discuss it with him in more detail in the context in which he has raised it and in general.
    8.15 p.m.
    What will emerge in the context of the European free trade area is still a matter of speculation, but it is right that we should have in mind all the considerations of our own national and industrial interests in any negotiations into which we enter. In this Bill we are concerned with the somewhat narrower context of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy. The definition of origin in Clause 8, with which the Committee is now concerned, is required for the specific purposes of enabling both the Board of Trade and the Customs and Excise appropriately to carry out the statutory duties laid upon them in ascertaining the country of origin for the purposes of making and operating the Orders to which the Bill refers.
    Mr. Rhodes: That will not do. We are defining what we want by inserting the 25 per cent. rule. We now have some choice in the matter, whereas if we leave it we will not be able to please ourselves. I should like more flexibility and responsibility given to the Board of Trade to decide appropriate percentages to apply to different commodities coming from different parts of the world. If we do not do this now, we will find the mistake later. We will freely agree to a certain amount of flexibility if the President of

    1087
    the Board of Trade will promise that the percentage will be assessed in each case on the merits of the case.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate what the hon. Member had to say on this subject in the Second Reading debate. As far as we can see, it is most appropriate to take a percentage basis. For that we have a twofold precedent, as the hon. Member will appreciate, both in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, and in the Imperial Preference formula which we have been discussing in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East had to say.
    It is necessary to find a method which will enable us to catch goods which are dumped substantially in the state in which they originated, in spite of certain processes, but not to make the percentage such as to invite retaliation by other countries and injure our exports. What we do now may have some influence on other international arrangements in both the European free trade area and elsewhere. The hon. Member must have in mind in this, as in all other contexts, that we are a great exporting nation and we do not want to take action which will prejudice our legitimate export interests. Of course, we can return to this subject on Report.
    Mr. Rhodes: We have had the percentage basis before in precisely the form mentioned by the Minister, in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. It never worked, was absolutely valueless and was later abolished. We should not rely on a precedent which was so valueless.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT [MONEY]
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section one of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the moneys so payable under the said Act of 1922.
    Resolution agreed to.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL

    Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS MAY BE MADE.)
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert:
    Provided that in the case of each scheme in territories other than Canada, Australia and New Zealand the consent of elected representatives of the indigenous peoples in the territories concerned has been secured.
    The Amendment embodies certain suggestions made in speeches during the Second Reading debate. It recognises the value of the Bill so far as it serves the interest of settlers in the white Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but it would add to the Clause a proviso that in other territories the consent of the elected representaives of the indigenous people should be secured.
    Those of us who are associated with the Amendment wish to be sure that the British immigrants who will be assisted under the Bill will be welcomed by the majority of the populations in the territories to which they go. There is no doubt of their welcome in Canada, Australia and New Zealand; those countries have dominantly white populations, and their Governments are eager that British immigrants should go there. But there is grave doubt whether a majority of the populations in certain Colonies would welcome settlers from this country. That is particularly true of territories in East and Central Africa.

    1089
    As all those who are familiar with conditions in those territories know, the African populations of Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and the Rhodesias are very concerned about increasing British settlement, and will remain so unless there are limitations upon the conditions in which that immigration takes place. Undoubtedly the desirable solution of the problem would be that consent should be secured from the Governments of those territories for the assistance of immigration from this country.
    The Labour Party takes the view that in these territories there should be democratic Legislatures and Governments. During the past year it has adopted a policy statement urging that in Colonial Territories, which are often described as multi-racial, the vote should be given to a human being irrespective of colour and race, and that as an immediate step towards that end there should be parity of franchise and of representation between the races. That would be the ideal solution, but that is not the position in many of these Colonial Territories at the moment. It would be true to say that in the West Indies, Malaya and West Africa the majority of the indigenous populations control the Legislatures, but that is emphatically not true in the case of the East and Central African Colonies.
    Let me indicate the degree to which the majority African populations of those Colonies now have representation in the Legislatures. According to the latest figures, of a total population of 6,048,200 in Kenya, 5.815,000 are Africans, and yet there are only three Africans in the Council of Ministers numbering 18. At this moment, also, there are only six—shortly to be increased to eight—in the Legislative Council of 56 members. In those circumstances the sponsors of the Amendment have not felt able to take what would be the ordinary course of asking that the Legislatures should give their consent. We have felt it desirable to ask that the elected representatives of the indigenous peoples should do so.
    Nyasaland is another example. There, the total population is about 2,575,000, of whom the Africans number about 2,560,000. There are 15,700 non-Africans in that territory. Yet in the Legislative Council numbering 23 members there are only five African representatives, once again indicating that it would not be
    1090
    enough to secure the consent of the Legislature. If one is to have the view of the majority of the population one should have the consent of the African representatives.
    Another instance is afforded by Northern Rhodesia. The total population there is 2,156,600. Of those, 2,085,000 are Africans. Yet there are only four Africans in the Legislative Council of 27 members. In the Federal Assembly for the whole of Nyasaland and the Rhodesias, although there are 6 million Africans and 200,000 Europeans, there are only six African representatives out of a membership of 35.
    It is for those reasons that we take the view that if British settlers in those countries are to be encouraged and helped by the Bill it should be with the consent of the majority of the indigenous populations. This is especially important because, as everyone who is familiar with these territories knows, there is a danger that the controversy which is now raging about this issue of the immigration of a settler population will turn to conflict.
    8.30 p.m.
    There is no subject which causes more intense feeling in East and Central Africa and holds greater potentiality for racial animosity than the encouragement of white settlers to those territories. Broadly speaking, the small European minority open their arms to an increased British and European settler community while the majority African populations oppose, and have great fears. The problem is complicated because in those territories there are also Asian communities, and while the European representatives are eager that more Europeans should enter those territories, those same Europeans frown on any encouragement of Asian immigration.
    In Uganda there is a limitation on land ownership by European and British settlers, but even in that Colony at the moment there is great fear of European and British settlement. They have been told that Uganda shall become primarily an African State. They fear immigration, and we do not, under this Bill, want British immigration to take place to a Colony where the settlers will find that there is opposition and antagonism to their arrival. In Kenya this problem is still more intense. The Mau Mau has been defeated and from the first I have

    1091
    been one of those who hoped that it would be. But the land problem remains, and among the African population there is an intense opposition to British and European immigration which will have land settlement rights.
    Mau Mau has been defeated on the physical plane, but unless there is a policy adopted which will win the approval of the great majority African population the intensities which have been expressed in Mau Mau may take a different form. I am one who greatly desires that in these circumstances a basis of agreement with the African population shall be provided.
    Even in Tanganyika Africans are asking that it shall be regarded primarily as an African State, as is Uganda. In Nyasaland the Secretary of State for the Colonies is finding that the African population desires a breakaway from the Federation because of their opposition to European domination. There is not the least doubt about the attitude of the African population there towards increased European settlement. Even in Northern Rhodesia the Secretary of State has found the same point of view being expressed by representatives of the African Congress.
    It would be unwise for this House to pass a Bill which would encourage any settlement of Europeans and British citizens to which the representatives of the vast majority of the African populations would be opposed. They would not oppose the coming of technicians, teachers or doctors; they would not oppose the coming of British immigrants who came in a spirit of racial equality, without racial superiority, and in a spirit of service. There is a wonderful experiment now proceeding in Southern Rhodesia under the supervision of my friend, Mr. Clutton Brock, at St. Faiths; where there is a community of racial equality, and experiments in education and agricultural development and even the beginning of light industry. Those who go to these territories in that spirit will receive a welcome from the African population.
    I do not want to see racial exclusiveness, but in Kenya and the Rhodesias Europeans and Asians who seek certain political and economic privileges and dominations will arouse racial antagonism. I appreciate that in those territories there
    1092
    are British settlers who have lived there for two or three generations, and who regard these countries as their homes. I would only say, so far as they are concerned, that it is of the utmost necessity that they should reach an agreement with the African populations and their representatives on these problems.
    We look forward to inter-racial cooperation, but inter-racial co-operation will be poisoned if there is assistance to the settlement of European and British citizens who will have privileges of land, privileges in economic circumstances, and privileges in political power. It is to prevent that happening that I am moving this Amendment.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has made this point, because what he said, if it is reported, will still further increase the growing feeling between African and European in the East and Central African territories.
    This Bill does nothing more than allow what has been going on for a great many years, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what would be the position of the Africans today if there had been no migration of Europeans to that part of the world during the last sixty years. During that time, the Africans have progressed from a very primitive state, in which they had been living for thousands of years, to a state which is now evolving in which the two nations are living together in peace and amity, provided that we do not stir up trouble from this side of the world. The development and evolution that has gone on there in the last sixty years is unbelievable, and to raise the point that the European has not done a great deal of service to the Africans is not being realistic.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the indigenous populations, but who are the indigenous populations? All the African natives who are there today have gradually migrated from the North. The indigenous people have been pushed out by various tribes which have migrated downwards from the North, and it is not right to say that the present black populations of East and Central Africa are the indigenous populations; they are not.
    I want to call attention to the fact that if anybody wants to know what has

    1093
    been going on in these countries, helped by the Europeans, he should go there with an open mind and see what has been done by Europeans. Let him have a look at some of the hospitals, which are comparable with the very best that we have in this country. Let him realise that the first African barrister has lately been called to the Bar in Rhodesia. Surely this is a great advance. An African would never have been called to the Bar without the assistance of the white population. These are the sort of things that are now going on in Africa. The African is being assisted in the cultivation of his land. Those who have been out there to see the great strides made by Africans in the cultivation of their land, with the assistance of Europeans, will realise that a tremendous amount of good has been done.
    Further, it is suggested that the people of the Rhodesias want to take into their country a wholesale influx of immigrants. That is not so. They are selective, and they want to be selective. They want immigrants who possess the know-how, not the ordinary labouring people— people who will go there and assist the natives to develop and to acquire technical knowledge.
    Broadly speaking, in both the Rhodesias, there is tremendous mineral wealth which should be processed, as far as possible, on the spot. If that is done, it will enable the African to raise his standard of living by the wealth that ensues. If it is not done, and we do not go to the help of the Africans, that mineral wealth will be exported in its primary state for the benefit of the rest of the world. I do not want to see that. I want to see primary industries started in the Rhodesias, where there is an immense labour force. That labour force will then be able to improve its standard of living even more than it is doing at the moment.
    If anybody does not believe that, I suggest that they should go to the Copperbelt and examine the houses which the mine owners have erected for the benefit of Africans. An immense amount of building has gone on there. Hospitals have been built. Whereas, at one time, the African hesitated to go to hospital because he thought that he was going to a mausoleum, he now forms a queue
    1094
    waiting for admission. He gets a tremendous amount of service from them.
    It is wrong that it should go out from this Committee that there is criticism which has not been countered by some of us on this side. I want to see migration to that part of the world—the migration of technicians and people with knowledge of how to work industry. The African is the first to benefit from that kind of migration. I hope that it will not go out to the Rhodesias that we are against them in their desire to get good settlers into those countries, because that is not so.
    Mr. John Dugdale: I should not have intervened except for the last remarks of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). The hon. Gentleman said that it was a good thing for the African that settlers should go out to Africa. All of us will agree that the best type of settler can do a lot of good, but we must realise that there are varying types of settler. Some are not at all desirable.
    What my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) says is that if the Africans desire it then these people should go there. If all these things are as suggested by the hon. Member for Leominster, why should the Africans not desire it? There must be something which stops the Africans from desiring to have immigrants. I suggest that it is because some of the immigrants are not as desirable as the hon. Member for Leominster would suppose.
    We must look at this matter most carefully. We are not against all emigration but we think that, especially in the Rhodesias, there are people there, such as Lord Malvern himself, who are anxious to see that the white population is increased so that they may continue the campaign which they have started, saying, "We are a free people. We are like America. We are white people here. We think that if you do anything to stop us getting our freedom to rule the country as we think fit you are doing something such as was done against the American people in the eighteenth century". That was the line taken by Lord Malvern, and it is a very dangerous line indeed.
    The noble Lord said that if there was any attempt by the British people to impose their will upon them, that small group

    1095
    of white people would fight back—and fight back with arms. That was a very dangerous thing to have said. We do not want immigrants of that kind there. We want the good type, and we should encourage them, and we must be very careful to see that we get them.
    Mr. James Johnson: Lord Malvern has perhaps made some silly speeches. I know him personally and I must say that he has made some better ones, too.
    This would be a foolish and mischievous debate if it developed into a slanging match as to whether black men are good and white men are bad or vice versa. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) invited us to go out and see for ourselves. Some of us have been in Africa more than once with, I hope, minds as honest as those of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We hope to go again in the future to see how things are getting on. We shall go with minds at least as fair and honest as those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with an endeavour to work for the future of that plural society.
    This would be a sterile debate if it developed into an ethnological dispute as to who are the indigenous peoples. One could argue about whether the Masai pushed out the Kikuyu in Kenya; or whether the Zulu pushed out the Matabele or Mashona in Rhodesia; or whether Jan Van Riebeck went to the Cape in the seventeenth century; but this gets us nowhere. We want the best type of immigrants working together for the better future of that plural society. It is a most difficult situation, and tension is high. It would help us little to argue the merits or demerits of whatever people live in the area. I stand by all I said about the land question and white settlement in the Second Reading debate; and I agree with 99 per cent. of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) a few minutes ago.
    8.45 p.m.
    I would ask the Minister a couple of questions about the Bill and the purpose for which the money is being spent. As I said last week, I happen to be on the Overseas Migration Board. I hope that the Minister will confirm that none of the moneys voted has been spent for the
    1096
    specific purpose of settling white farmers on the lands of East and Central Africa. I want to be quite firm about this, because it is fearfully important that the right answer should go out. In the past, this has not happened. We have spent some of the money to send out scores of fine young boys to homes in Southern Rhodesia. Perhaps the Minister will confirm what I say. I am the last person to wish to spend money on subsidising a Yorkshire or a Devon farmer to go out there, but we hope that many technicians, doctors, veterinary surgeons, entomologists and teachers will go out to help the Africans in fitting themselves for the difficult task of governing themselves in the future.
    I want the Minister to be quite specific and to say what the money has been used for. Not much of it has been spent; a few tens of thousands of pounds. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that, as it has not been spent in the past, so it is not the intention of the Government to use the money in the future to help to settle white farmers in the territories of East and Central Africa.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: Not for the first time has my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) directed our attention to disquieting features in central and other parts of Africa. I appreciate the motives which have inspired him to put this Amendment forward. It raises questions of democracy in those territories but, after all, this is not a debate on that precise subject. My hon. Friend has very ingeniously injected that subject into the debate, and I am not blaming him for it.
    I would remind my hon. Friends and the Committee generally of what was said during the Second Reading debate. If anything of value then emerged it was the opinion expressed in all quarters of the House that in Commonwealth migration and settlement there should be complete co-ordination. By that we mean that the Governments concerned, excluding none of them, not even in the African territories, should help to create adequate machinery of a co-ordinating character for determining, first, the statistics to be made available to the Governments concerned to enable them to form a rational judgment on the situation, on the finance required, and on all

    1097
    the paraphernalia associated with migration.
    That was the view expressed on the occasion of the Second Reading debate. We hope that that view will receive practical application in due course. I note, by the way, that some of my hon. Friends have put a Motion on the Order Paper in which they ask for the creation of co-ordinating machinery, following what was said in the course of the Second Reading debate. No doubt we shall have a further debate on that subject—I hope very soon, because it is a vital matter concerning the whole of the Commonwealth. In view of that, it seems to me that it would be wrong at this stage to inject an Amendment, even if the Government accepted it, which might create the impression that concerning certain parts of the Commonwealth territories we want to contract out of the co-ordinating machinery which we regard as essential in the circumstances.
    I wish to put another point. Whilst appreciating all that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said, I think there is a great deal that has to be said about the conditions in the African territories and the somewhat half-baked democracy that exists there. All these matters have to be corrected and no doubt will be corrected in due course—the sooner the better—but it seems to me that if we are to inject into the Empire Settlement Bill—the Act as it will become—a provision that no person can go from this country to any of the African territories without the consent of the elected representatives in those territories, there must be complete reciprocity.
    That, of course, implies that no person in any of those African territories should be permitted to come to the United Kingdom without the consent of the elected representatives in this country. That would hardly do. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend cares to suggest that. In the absence of that reciprocity it would be somewhat unfair. After all, a principle—if it is acceptable, if it is desirable, if it is just, if it is honest—should apply all round, but this Amendment would apply only to one section and not to the other.
    Moreover, how is it to be applied? Are the elected representatives in any of the African territories to sit in solemn conclave and consider the application by some person from the United Kingdom
    1098
    who wishes to settle in any of those African territories? That is very complicated machinery and would scarcely be suitable in the circumstances.
    It seems to me that we must rest our case on the principle which was at any rate mentioned in the Second Reading debate, and which I hope before long will be fully established, namely, the creation of the co-ordinating machinery which is required. If that is done my hon. Friend will have gained a great deal, but, much as I should like to support my hon. Friend—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) in 99 per cent. of what he said but somehow boggle at the other 1 per cent.—I beg him not to press this Amendment to a Division, because it might prove somewhat embarrassing to those of us who want to be almost excessively loyal to our Colonies.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I can assure him that any proposals for improving the machinery of consultation in the Commonwealth are matters which are regarded by my right hon. Friend and by the Government as of the greatest importance. I hope that on another occasion we shall have the opportunity of debating the ideas which may be put forward by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are interested in that subject.
    I turn to the terms of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has moved. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was, I think, very wise when he warned his hon. Friend of the dangers in which we might find ourselves in trying to define the indigenous population of any particular part of Africa and, not least, of the Rhodesias. Arguments about the Matabele might lead us into great ethnological and historical complexity.
    Mr. J. Johnson: I was warning the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), not my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).
    Mr. Brockway: I was using the word "indigenous" exactly as it was used by a

    1099
    great Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1923. I refer to the Devonshire Declaration, which declared that the interests of the indigenous population should be paramount and meant by "indigenous" exactly what is meant in the Amendment.
    Mr. Alport: Even so, there would be considerable argument about the interpretation of that phrase.
    I will, if I may, answer some questions which have been raised about the practical implications of the Amendment and the argument put forward by the hon. Member. If I may say so, I know from some experience what is in his mind. He will not expect me to accept the premises upon which many of his arguments are founded, nor will he, I hope, expect me to comment on the constitutional matters which he raised and which are more properly in the sphere of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but, in passing, I should say that I do not think that Her Majesty's present Government can be accused of being slow in grasping opportunities for constitutional progress in Africa.
    The example of the Lyttelton Constitution, an experiment, as indeed it was, is an example of the good will and progressive thought which has animated my right hon. Friend and his predecessor throughout their period of office, and the example of the progress which is being made in Ghana and which will be carried still further in a very significant way within a matter of weeks is further evidence of our attitude to this problem.
    The real objective behind the Amendment, as I see it, is to deal with the application of the Bill to the Central African Federation. I think the hon. Member will realise that were there any intention of extending its provisions to Colonial Territories in the strict sense of the word, that would be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to ensuring that the proper interests of all sections of the community, and, naturally, of what he would term the indigenous section of the community, were safeguarded.
    If I may, I will narrow it down to the point which was raised on Second Reading and which, I think, is one of the main
    1100
    problems which the hon. Member has in mind. The hon. Member for Rugby asked me how much money had been spent during the last few years, from the moneys voted under the previous Acts, for emigration to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The moneys spent are very small. The purpose is very limited. In 1949, which is the year in which most money was spent, the figure was £9,835, and the number of children who went to the Federation, or what was in those days Southern Rhodesia, was only 22. They went to the Rhodesia Fairbridge Memorial College to be looked after, educated and brought up in that territory. The figures subsequently have varied, but have never been more than in 1951—£5,250. In 1956, they were £2,694. The number of migrants and the amount of money involved are, therefore, very small.
    9.0 p.m.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me for an assurance about future intentions. We have not yet been asked by the Government of the Federation for any assistance under the existing Act or, anticipating the passing of this Bill, under the Act which is to succeed it. But I think that the Committee would generally agree that we are anxious to see useful migrants of British origin go to the Federation to assist in the development of that part of Africa.
    Supposing that the Amendment were accepted by the Committee, it would not, of course, prevent European migration to the Federation. What it would do, in fact, is to put an obstacle, perhaps a small obstacle but an obstacle nevertheless, in the way of the movement of European population from this country to the Federation, with the result that any lack of balance that there might be in respect of migration from the Union into the Federation would be further enhanced. I will not argue whether that is a good or a bad thing, but I would guess, from my knowledge of the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, that that is not the sort of purpose he had in mind.
    Indeed, I think that it is right that the Committee should always remember the fears that exist—and I accept that they do exist—in the African mind about certain aspects of land settlement, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members

    1101
    opposite were absolutely right in pointing out that settlement is not merely a question of land settlement at present, but also involves the migration into the countries concerned of a large number of extremely useful people with technical and professional skills and attributes which are essential to the development of Africa and the raising of the standard of living of peoples of all races. I believe that this question of land policy is one which must be settled on the spot. We should be mistaken in introducing that matter into our consideration of emigration policy under this Bill.
    I would point out one further fact, that a great many people who may go out to the Rhodesias or other parts of Africa as doctors, veterinary surgeons, agricultural officers, or whoever they may be, might eventually, and quite reasonably, feel when the time came that they would like to have a stake in the country and do something to become the form of settlers to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the settlers in land. Therefore, the Amendment would not achieve the purpose that he has in mind. In fact, I would suggest to him that it would do the opposite, damage some of the interests he has in mind, and I hope that in these circumstances he will not feel it necessary to press for the acceptance of the Amendment.
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I think that the Under-Secretary of State has indicated that he is not out of sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). He said that we have disagreements about how we interpret the word "indigenous", but in the case of the Rhodesias he gave an assurance that the wishes of the indigenous peoples would be taken fully into account. My hon. Friend is rather wary of this kind of assurance because past experience has shown that, however good the intentions of the Minister, there have been other influences at work which have stopped the implementation of the wish.
    The hon. Gentleman made reference to Kenya and the multi-racial society that we hope to create, and how this Government should bring about a multi-racial group of Ministers to work together. He will be aware that the intention was to go further, and the fact that we have not
    1102
    been able to push on with the development of multi-racial Government has resulted in white settlers becoming more reactionary.
    I venture to suggest that the prospect of making a success of multi-racial Government is more dismal today than at the time since we started talking about this development. I pay tribute to the statesmanlike way in which the Minister concerned tried to bring it about; but we have to push more energetically and bring pressure on the settlers in the territories to recognise that their own rights are best sustained by recognising that ultimately all these countries, by democratic elections, will be ruled by the majority, and the majority will not be those who come from Europe or elsewhere.
    I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not press the Amendment. There are various methods by which in these days we have to decide who is to take part in an election—either on an educational or a property basis—and if a number of the indigenous people are not consulted democracy is not given full play. While my hon. Friend deserves credit for raising this matter for discussion, I suggest that he should now withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: I prefer to withdraw the Amendment, though not for the reasons stated by my right hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). As I am satisfied on this occasion to have expressed my views, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. George Lawson: I and other of my hon. Friends had hoped, Sir Gordon, that you would have called the Amendment in page 1, line 13, at the end insert:
    Provided that the Secretary of State shall take such steps as will ensure that he is adequately informed on the numbers, ages and skills of the intending emigrants and operates the scheme in such manner as will safeguard any one part of the United Kingdom from losing a disproportionately large part of its people.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It is not selected.
    Mr. Lawson: The ruling from the Chair must be accepted, but had that Amendment been called we had hoped to stress the importance of taking the steps therein suggested. I am sure that the Committee will agree that the Amendment contains a most reasonable request. It might be argued that such was already the duty of the Minister concerned. If that is so, then I would certainly put it to the Committee that that duty is not being, and cannot be, fulfilled as the scheme would seem to be operated now.
    I had not the advantage of hearing the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations speaking in the Second Reading debate, but I have read his speech very carefully. There he says—and it seemed to me that this was the kernel of the Government's policy:
    "… the Commonwealth Governments are well aware that we cannot allow them to make too extensive inroads upon the labour forces of any particular industry or of any particular area of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January. 1957; Vol. 563, c. 545–61
    What we feel is that the hon. Gentleman has certainly not provided himself with the means of enabling him to act in this way. If we are to be sure that we are avoiding
    "… too extensive inroads upon the labour forces of any particular industry or of any particular area of this country"
    the Government must be adequately informed of what is happening in this process of emigration and immigration.
    As I see it, the Government are certainly not informed as to what is happening in those matters. In its reference to the matter yesterday, the Manchester Guardian said:
    "In the discussion about the skilled men the country is losing, there is an almost complete lack of statistics. Nobody knows exactly who is leaving. Even the Prime Minister, when he was asked how many scientists had emigrated, could only reply that there were no figures to show"—
    The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. Gentleman is now discussing is very far removed from the Clause.
    Mr. Lawson: I understood, Sir Gordon, that Clause 1 was, in fact, the Bill. I understand that the Bill concerns the powers of the Government to stimulate, among other things, emigration from this country to the Commonwealth. I understand, too, from what the Under-Secretary
    1104
    has said, that we have a certain policy in this matter, and I am trying to argue that this policy cannot be carried out without the required information.
    The Deputy-Chairman: During the Committee stage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the Clause.
    Mr. Lawson: But Clause 1 covers the Bill, Sir Gordon, and that is what I am speaking about. It refers to the previous Acts and, presumably, in doing so it embraces all that those previous Acts contained, and they contained this matter.
    I was trying to put the point—and I will endeavour to keep it as narrow as I can—that unless we have the information as to what, in fact, is happening, we cannot carry out this purpose. If, of course, the Under-Secretary tells me that this purpose of ensuring that there are not too serious inroads into the labour force of any of our industries or into the population of any part of the country, and if he says that it is not the concern of the Government, then, presumably, I should be out of order. However, in view of what the Under-Secretary said, I am putting the point that we must surely have this information.
    In the course of the Second Reading debate the Under-Secretary said:
    "I must confess to the House that the figures which I have used are the best I can obtain in the circumstances, but one of the great difficulties about any study or discussion of migration problems is that accurate statistics are not easy to obtain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 547.]
    It would seem that we not only lack statistics about the movement of people with particular skills from the country, but that we appear to lack statistics about many things in this matter. For example, we appear not to know the actual number of emigrants from the country. I am talking of gross figures. We find it exceedingly difficult—if we have the figure I have yet to learn it—to get to know the number of people who return to this country. We seem to be in great doubt as to the ages of the people. We must surely be in doubt about ages if we are not sure about the number of people who leave or come back to the country. We certainly do not appear to have very much information about the parts of the country from which the people come and no information at all, apparently, of the reasons for their leaving the country.

    1105
    It is very important not merely that we should have the net figures of the loss of people—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I think he is trying to discuss the Amendment which was not selected. The debate is now confined to the Clause.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely it is in order to discuss the effects of Clause 1 on particular parts of the country, Sir Gordon. In Clause 1 we are approving of the expenditure of money to promote certain schemes of emigration. Surely it is in order to discuss whether it is desirable in certain cases to promote this and what effect it is likely to have.
    9.15 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order to use the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to discuss an Amendment which has not been selected.
    Mr. Lawson: I fail to understand, Sir Gordon, what can be discussed on this Question if I cannot discuss the purposes of the Clause which, I understand, are to stimulate, encourage and induce emigration from this country. I am referring to access to the facts about it.
    If I may resume on this point about the part of the country with which I am specially concerned, namely, Scotland, may I say that all the information I have been able to obtain on the question of emigration or immigration in connection with Scotland relates to the net figures? The gross figures are also important, and I make the point to the Under-Secretary of State that we ought to have them. For example, we ought to know how many natives of Scotland are leaving that country.
    I do not suggest that the people we get in return are not as good because I do not know, nobody knows. We all recognise that there are people coming to Scotland, not Scotsmen, and if there is an excessive movement of people out of a country then the character of that country will be in serious danger of being submerged, or perhaps so damaged or altered that the natives of the country will be seriously concerned.
    Mr. Brian Harrison: To clear our minds, could the hon. Gentleman
    1106
    distinguish between indigenous people and native people?
    Mr. Lawson: The Chair is already concerned with this matter and I do not want to enter into that point. When we are dealing with Scottish people who were born several generations ago, that is good enough for me. Such people, who regard themselves as Scottish people, are indigenous as far as I am concerned.
    I put the point, then, that it is important for us to keep in mind not only the net figures but also the gross figures of loss, since in this connection we can see a transformation of the culture of a country, and some of us might not want to see such a transformation. Some of us who may not be regarded as conservative are so conservative in our ideas that there are things we regard as good, and want to see maintained. If our population is swamped by other people, we are in serious danger of losing the things we value.
    Turning briefly to the net figures, which are the only ones we can obtain, and again referring to the Second Reading debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) indicated how seriously perturbed many people of Scotland were that Scotland might be carrying much more than her due share in this emigration programme. In replying, the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to say many kind things about Scottish people. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he, at least, had no fear for the future of Scotland. May I say that some of us do not quite share his absence of fear? The hon. Gentleman said:
    "The fact is that the net loss of population through emigration in Scotland, according to the Registrar-General's Report, is still, I am glad to say, below the natural increase of population in recent years, although the figure is a marginal one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 632.1
    The figure which the hon. Gentleman gave was 24,000. He was taking an average figure over a number of years as the estimated loss of people from Scotland. He gave the average natural increase of the Scottish population as 33,000 a year.
    We ought to be concerned with whether or not Scotland is losing a disproportionately large part of its population. Perhaps I might say, as an aside, that I am not one of those who think that every

    1107
    person who goes to Australia, New Zealand or Canada is a gain. That may be so, but I feel that the people who leave our country should, by and large, be regarded as losses. After a generation or two they cease to be Scottish and become Canadians, New Zealanders, or Australians.
    As to whether or not Scotland is losing a disproportionately large part of its population, the increase in the Scottish population between 1939 and 1955, according to the Digest of Statistics, was 126,000 or 2·5 per cent. Over the same period the Northern Ireland population increased by 7·6 per cent. In England and Wales, taken together—the figure for Wales separately would be very different—the population increased by 7·2 per cent., and the total United Kingdom population increased by 6·7 per cent.
    Had the Scottish population increased at the rate, not of Northern Ireland or England and Wales, but of the United Kingdom population, which is the lowest rate, we should have had an additional 210,000 people in our country today. It means that had our net loss been on the same basis as that for the other parts of the United Kingdom, we should have had nearly a quarter of a million more people in the country today. From a population of 5 million, we are sending out every year 24,000. Although that is the figure that we are given, I have serious doubts about it, but on that basis we find that the Scottish population is barely increasing at all.
    Had I time—I gather that I have trespassed long enough—I could show that the process is going on in Scotland in many ways which I consider to be injurious, although I am not seeking to argue that we should try to stop Scotland from participating in emigration schemes. I say that we ought to have accurate information about what is happening. On the basis of that accurate information, we can then conduct these schemes in a way which will not induce Scottish people to leave their country in a much greater proportion than does the population of the rest of the United Kingdom.
    It is a question not of trying to stop from emigrating those people who wish to emigrate, but of people being induced to emigrate. That is happening day
    1108
    after day, especially in Scotland. I am concerned that we should know more about what is happening. If that is the job of the Under-Secretary, it has not been done up to the present and cannot be done without this information. We must have the fullest and most accurate information available.
    Mr. Ronald Russell: I hope that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) will forgive me if I do not deal with his statistics about the United Kingdom. I want to mention a practical example of stimulating emigration which is being tried by a friend of mine who, paradoxically, emigrated from Australia to this country about thirty years ago: I hope that my hon. Friend will give his support to it. My friend's idea is to stimulate between a local authority in this country and a local authority in Western Australia—as the arrangements have not been completed, I will not reveal the names of the local authorities—a method by which Australia will take people from the housing waiting list of the local authority in this country and house them in Australia.
    I hasten to add that this does not mean a subsidy from this country for the building of houses in Australia. They will be for owner-occupiers, and all that will be asked is possibly some facilities granted under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. My hon. Friend will be relieved to hear that it is not a matter of a subsidy. This is a very practical example of helping emigration. This friend of mine, Mr. William Mosey of Radlett, Hertfordshire, is prepared to start the scheme by buying a plot of land on which houses can be built. As there has been so much talk over the last fifty years about emigration and as, on the whole, it has led to comparatively little action—I am not blaming anybody for that, because this is a difficult and complicated subject—when one gets a practical example of someone trying to stimulate emigration in this way, it is worth putting on the record, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give his support to it.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: I should like to follow the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). It is very relevant to ask ourselves what is

    1109
    happening when we spend this money. Certainly in Scotland there is much public concern about what is going on. It is very difficult to get an accurate picture. I am one of those who like to see younger people displaying enterprise, initiative and the spirit of adventure. I am all for people going about the world and establishing themselves and doing the things they want to do when they are young. Certainly the older one gets, the less one is inclined to do them.
    The position in Scotland is causing much concern. Attention has been drawn to it by a most authoritative source. Last May, in the Scottish Council of Industries monthly magazine, Scotland, there was a most thought-provoking article by the former Registrar-General for Scotland. It was headed:
    "Scotland's creeping paralysis."
    I should like to give the Committee certain facts from that article. The writer deals with the question of emigration from Scotland, and the first point he makes is that during the first half of this century, for each person lost to England and Wales by migration Scotland lost 16 of her inhabitants, proportionately. That is a staggering figure.
    He goes on to point out that this rate of emigration from Scotland seems to he maintained at a very high level. There is no evidence that it is diminishing in any respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) pointed out that it is very difficult to obtain the exact figures, but the picture certainly calls for some thought. The article points out that this emigration from Scotland is most seriously affecting what the writer calls the most vital cohort of the nation, namely, the age groups between 5 and 34 years of age.
    It says that although the population has increased by about 250,000 since 1931 the number of people in Scotland between the ages of 5 and 34 was 250,000 fewer than it was in 1931, the reduction being almost equally divided between men and women. About 30,000 of this loss was due to deaths in the Second World War, but that does not diminish the still serious aspect that there were almost 250,000 fewer people in Scotland in those age groups, in spite of the increase in the population.
    At the present time, when we are agreeing to spend this money, the rate
    1110
    of emigration seems to be continuing, and it appears that over 90 per cent. of the emigrants from Scotland are under the age of 45. It is still the younger people who are leaving Scotland. The article says:
    "Not only do the younger age-groups provide most of the emigrants, but those are drawn from the most important industrial groups."
    In other words, as we would expect—and as we have been trying to encourage to a great extent—the emigrants come from the engineering, building, contracting and transport industries, and the professional, managerial and clerical occupations. The articles continues:
    "Scotland is fast losing the trained young personnel which is so necessary for the future prosperity of her industrial system."
    The writer ends with this note—and it is a point to remember when considering the Bill:
    "If the drift away from Scotland continues in the second half of the twentieth century at the same rate as was experienced in the last 50 years—and there is so far no evidence that it will not—Scotland will be a country of aged and infirm inhabitants, unsupported by an adequate industrial system, which requires youth and vigour for its operation."
    The Under-Secretary of State laughs, but this is no laughing matter. This is not some propagandist writing a scare-mongering article in the weekend Press. This is a very responsible publication by the Scottish Council, and this is the former Registrar-General of Scotland, Mr. Kyd, writing it.
    Mr. Alport: I was in no way laughing at the importance of the subject; indeed, I paid a very considerable tribute to the Scottish nation when we last discussed the matter. My feeling is that I could hardly accept the prospect of Scotland ever becoming the region of decadence which the writer has forecast for it. Knowing the vitality of the Scots, I do not believe that anything like that could happen.
    Mr. Willis: We are quite prepared to accept that little tribute, but it does not detract from the seriousness of these figures and this position, about which there has been a great deal of public controversy.
    It would not be in order now to discuss in detail what should be done about it, but it lends weight to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for

    1111
    Motherwell that the position should be watched. The answer briefly is that we are not providing sufficient inducements in Scotland, and here the Government have a serious responsibility—I notice that a Scottish junior Minister has just crept into the Chamber very modestly, as usual. But the fault lies with the Government. We should have as much information as possible in order to determine where we are going; to decide whether we are doing what is right in Scotland; to aid us in fulfilling our obligations to the world, and to give our youth a chance.
    Mr. W. T. Aitken (Bury St. Edmunds): I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but this question of information is an important and vital aspect of emigration. Those of us who take some interest in emigration will agree that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has done a service in raising this matter. The one thing we need is information.
    One bit of information about Scotland I am able to give. I do not know whether it is of advantage to Scotland, but it is certainly of advantage to people who emigrate from Scotland. One need only look at the list of bank presidents, chairmen of universities, heads of insurance companies, and various other office holders in Canada or Australia to see that they nearly all have Scottish names. In Canada, if one has even a trace of a Scottish accent, one can dispense with a letter of recommendation or references.
    There is no doubt that information of the kind described by the hon. Member is absolutely essential if we are to obtain any idea about how emigration is affected not only in this country, but in the receiving country. As a member of the Overseas Migration Board I can say that we encounter this difficulty continually. How much do we know? What kind of people emigrate? What makes them go? From what part of the country do they come, and what industries are affected? No one seems to have that information. My hon. Friend apprehends this very well. It was pointed out in some detail during the Second Reading debate.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I wish to join with the
    1112
    hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) in supporting the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for further information. We are in the dark about several things. I suggest that we need more information about the skills possessed by the people leaving this country. The most striking example given by my hon. Friend was that of the scientists, which shows how relevant is this information to present problems.
    We require information also about those who return, and that has never been available. It seems to me to be an important element in estimating the success of the policy. We should try to understand what makes people come back from the country to which they had emigrated, and see whether that would help us to overcome some of the obstacles.
    There is one further piece of rather more restricted information for which there is some justification in asking, and that is the distinction between people leaving Scotland for England and Wales and for overseas. That may not perhaps sound important to hon. Members who represent English, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies, but it is a matter of considerable interest, and a quite legitimate and justifiable interest, to people in Scotland. I think that my hon. Friend is on very sound ground when he asks for a good deal more information about the people who are leaving this country, but I am not so sure that he is on such sound ground in respect of the remainder of his argument.
    I am bound to say that I find a certain degree of difficulty in agreeing with a number of the things which he said, but I find even greater difficulty perhaps in relation to one of the things which the Under-Secretary of State said in his Second Reading speech in some remarks which have already been quoted by my hon. Friend:
    "Indeed, the Commonwealth Governments are well aware that we cannot allow them to make too extensive inroads upon the labour forces of any particular industry or of any particular area of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 545–6.]
    I do not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by that. He said that we cannot allow them. What do we do if we want to stop them? We can perhaps refrain from giving what assistance we now give, but surely there is nothing we can do

    1113
    that will actually prevent the Commonwealth Governments making such inroads, if they are successful in attracting our people?
    Beyond that point, my main quarrel is with my hon. Friend. He is quite right in putting forward the view, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) supported him, that there is a certain amount of anxiety in Scotland about the apparently disproportionate number, judged by those migrating from England and Wales, of migrants from Scotland, but it does not seem to me that there is any widespread anxiety. There is a certain amount of perturbation expressed in restricted and limited quarters. One of them, curiously enough, is the authoritative quarter which has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, but that quarter is authoritative on figures, rather than on the policies, feelings and interests behind them.
    I do not think, so far as I can understand the Scottish people, that there is any serious worry among Scottish people generally about the fact that so many of our people have emigrated. We always have emigrated in very large numbers, and we have always taken very great pride in the fact that we have done so and in what we have done after migrating.
    I certainly cannot reconcile myself to the use of the word "lost" in this connection at all. I do not think that there is any point or any sense in talking about people who are —I am sorry to put it so strongly to my hon. Friend—"lost" to Scotland. In this case, surely, what is lost on the swings is gained on the roundabouts, and what is lost to Scotland is a gain to another part of the Commonwealth. I think that probably the loss is in most cases actually a gain to humanity in general. I think it is probably true to say that most emigrants who go from Scotland, for instance to Canada, work in Canada with a bigger proportion of capital and power behind them, so that they are able to produce more there than if they had remained in Scotland, and the gain, not only to the Commonwealth but to humanity in general, seems to lie with the encouragement of emigration from Scotland.
    1114
    This arguing about a possible figure of 210,000 being added to the number of people in Scotland seems to me to be going into far too much detail about a matter that really is of no great significance. I am afraid that there is a certain amount of emotion in Scotland which one can only call the "Little Scotlander" attitude—the tendency to feel that Scotland should have a wall built round it and that everyone should stay inside. Though I am not accusing my hon. Friend of that, I am suggesting that some of the things that he has been saying are of a sort that might well encourage that kind of feeling, and I should not like the hon. Gentleman, the Committee, or indeed the country in general to feel that Scotland is in any great danger of taking that point of view as a nation and as a people.
    Mr. John Rankin: Will my hon. Friend clarify his argument a little? One might accept the general trend. Is he leading us to believe that he will ignore these figures completely? Does not he think that they represent a tendency which would be injurious to Scotland?
    Mr. MacPherson: I do not think that they represent a tendency which we have any justification for saying would be injurious to Scotland. We do not know exactly who are going. We have no possible way of making an economic analysis of the effects on Scotland or, what is more important, a wider analysis of the political and sociological type. I should say that if we were in a position to do that we should almost certainly find that the loss to Scotland was far more than counterbalanced by the gain elsewhere.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I wish to make two points, both of which concern the Overseas Migration Board. We are now saying goodbye, after five years, to the Empire Settlement Act of 1952. If precedent is followed we shall not have another general discussion on the subject of migration until 1962. In the interval, responsibility for forming general policy on migration falls upon the Overseas Migration Board.
    My first point is this: does my hon. Friend consider that its terms of reference are wide enough to give it the opportunity

    1115
    adequately to survey the whole field of migration and all the implications of a migration policy in terms of such things as strategy, Commonwealth relations, and economics, or does he consider, as I personally do, that it might be advisable to extend the terms of reference of the Board to enable it to carry out that proper survey?
    The second point is a rather more delicate one. Does my hon. Friend intend to follow the example of his predecessors by taking the chair of this Board himself? Nobody could wonder for a moment about his suitability to take the chair of any board, especially this one, but he has one great disadvantage, which is that he himself is the Under-Secretary of State whom the Board is supposed to be advising. In other words, as chairman of the Board he would be advising himself. Would not it give him a great deal more freedom if he were not chairman of the Board—a great deal more freedom to reject its recommendations?
    The Chairman: It is going rather wide of the Clause to discuss the chairman of the Board.
    Mr. Nicolson: This is a one-Clause Bill. I could have made this speech upon Third Reading, Sir Charles.
    The Chairman: Yes, but this is not Third Reading.
    Mr. Nicolson: I was under the impression that this was a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Chairman: Yes, and on that Question one can talk only about what is in the Clause. The hon. Gentleman is going into details which are not in the Clause. If he does not want the money to be given, he can give his reasons for that, but I do not think that the question of the chairman of the Board can be brought in.
    Mr. Nicolson: This is a one-Clause Bill, and when we are discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we are discussing the Bill. I submit that it is in order to raise any subject which concerns the operation of the Bill as a whole, as has been done by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee up to now.
    The Chairman: Since I have been in the Chair the point has been made that Scotsmen do not want the money to be given, because it takes too many people away from my country.
    Mr. Nicolson: As I cannot more directly relate my observations to Clause 1, I will resume my seat, Sir Charles. I think that I have made the two points which I wished to make.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I shall not take any part in the differences of opinion evinced by my hon. Friends, although I am more in agreement with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) than with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson).
    Before I am ready to agree to the Clause I ask for clarification and assurance on a matter of the greatest importance not only to Scotland but to the United Kingdom. We are asked to allow money to be used to help emigrants from this country to go to certain parts of the Commonwealth. I am not opposed to that generally, but one matter perturbs me greatly. I have come across it in my own constituency and I know that it happens in other parts of the country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) gave figures of the age group that has emigrated from Scotland. I imagine that the figures will apply to the whole United Kingdom. They do not mean that only people of that age group want to migrate but that only people of that age group will benefit under the Clause. The Minister ought to give close attention to this matter. I may be able to illustrate the point by giving him an instance in my constituency.
    Two young men in one family wanted to emigrate to New Zealand. It was a very close family, as many Scottish and, I expect, United Kingdom families are, and the young men did not want to go without their parents and younger brothers and sisters. When they made application to be considered under the assisted-passage scheme it was found that the young men could be assisted, but not the parents, who were over the qualifying age. The result was that first one son and then the second son went, while the mother and father were left at home with the school children. The family was

    1117
    thereby broken up with great hardship not only to the two young men but to the rest of the family left at home. Government assistance is bad if it does not take into account the desires of the family as a whole.
    I know that the parents and the younger children may get to New Zealand later, but only if the two sons are willing to sacrifice and save in order to send money home to pay their passage. The young people in that family may be willing to do that, but in some cases I think the sacrifice is too great. Even if they are willing to do it, they have to give certain guarantees that they will be responsible if it should turn out that their parents are not fit to take care of themselves when they arrive.
    Any emigration scheme which allows that to happen is not, in my opinion, a good emigration scheme. It is not a good scheme from the point of view of the family and what the family can mean to every individual in it, the parents, the young people and the children. It is not a good thing from the point of view of the United Kingdom. Figures quoted for Scotland show clearly that if emigration from that part of the United Kingdom continues at its present rate, in Scotland we shall be left with a population which is very unbalanced, a population which has far too many old people and too few people between 20 and 40 years of age.
    I ask the Minister tonight for an assurance that he will have this matter examined and ascertain whether it is possible, through this money which the British Government give, to ensure that there will not be this rigidly selective emigration from our country, but that everything possible will be done to ensure that families as a whole can emigrate and so give young people in the country of their choice all the benefits that good parents and a good home can give them.
    Mr. Graham Page: I hesitate to intervene in a Scottish debate. I have never done so before, but I waited five hours during the Second Reading debate to get in the few words that I want to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
    We are legislating, under Clause 1, to spend £1½ million a year on emigration. Since 1937 we have thought it worth voting that amount of money each year,
    1118
    but we have never spent it. We have spent 12 per cent. of it on an average each year. I think I can go further and say that we have deliberately restricted expenditure to that 12 per cent. I entirely understand the difficulties of the receiving countries in assimilating a great number of immigrants into their economy.
    That is well set out in the Report of the Overseas Migration Board, which shows how difficult it is to provide the services for incoming migrants. That Report states, in page 9:
    "Immigrants require housing, work-places, machines and materials to work with, consumer goods and services, etc."
    I should hope that in spending the £1½ million a year we should have a policy which would take into account the fact that priority should be given to what I might call those who go to service the coming immigrants—the administrators, the doctors, the distributors of consumer goods and services.
    If our policy of emigration were definitely connected with specific development schemes, if in Australia, Canada and New Zealand it were found that in a particular place it was right to build a reservoir, to erect an atomic energy station, to build a bridge, construct a harbour or whatever it might be, and that X number of men were needed to do that work, those men would require Y number of men in the neighbouring town to provide the services. We should recruit from this country the Y number of men and see that that was treated with priority, before going on to the second stage, the development project.
    That is the only commonsense way of treating emigration, but as I understand there is no such commonsense policy at present. I understand the policy to be merely that a list goes from some Government Department to the immigration officers of the High Commissioners saying, "Please do not accept nurses," or "Please do not accept stenographers."
    10.0 p.m.
    I should like to ask the Minister: what is this system of lists from Government Departments? Do they come from the separate Government Departments direct to the High Commissioners, or do they pass through the Commonwealth Relations Office? Is there an organisation in the Commonwealth Relations Office

    1119
    which keeps track of this sort of direction as to who shall and who shall not be accepted for emigration? If there is not, and if the organisation is not within the grasp of the Commonwealth Relations Office, then it certainly ought to be if we are to vote under the Bill £1½ million a year for emigration.
    I should like to see a policy worked out for the planned expenditure of this money instead of it being spent, as it has been spent in the past, only upon assisted passages. The name itself condemns it. We do not want merely assisted passages; we want assisted settlement, assisted development and assisted expansion, and we shall get that only by a policy within the grasp of the Commonwealth Relations Office and not interfered with by other Government Departments.
    Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Such a plea for a planned policy more often comes from this side of the Committee. It is not merely a question of planning the way the money is spent on emigrants sent, for instance, to Canada; it is a question of planning on a very much wider scale, taking the Commonwealth as a whole.
    I do not think that anyone on this side of the Committee wishes to discourage emigration from Scotland, provided that it is for the right reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) warned some of us not to be labelled as little Scotlanders. I warn him that he must be careful not to become a junior imperialist.
    The fact which concerns many of us on this side of the Committee is that the figures from the 1951 Census, as analysed by the man most capable of doing it—the ex-Registrar-General of Scotland—show the effect of emigration from Scotland over the fifty years from the beginning of the century to 1951 and show a net loss of population of 1,100,000 people. Considering the kind of people who have left Scotland, this is a very serious matter for the future of Scotland.
    The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) should be studied and we should
    1120
    consider what will happen if they continue. We have complacency here and even joy in the heart of one hon. Member opposite, but if these figures continue the future for Scotland is very serious indeed. Every young man who is driven to pack his bag and leave Scotland for Canada, Australia, or anywhere else, is a menace to the future of Scottish industry.
    We must recognise that Scotsmen do not leave their country for trivial reasons. This is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs forgot: the first great exodus from Scotland was caused by the Highland clearances, and in the last thirty years, certainly in the years between the wars, it was the ravages of unemployment which drove the people away. I am sorry to tell the Government that today the queues of people inquiring about emigration in Glasgow, Edinburgh and the other cities of Scotland are greater than they have been for many years. This is something that should give the Government cause for thought.
    I expected an intervention tonight by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. In fact I had hoped that the new link-up between the Colonial Office and the new Secretary of State for Scotland, who has had charge of certain affairs there, might have resulted in his gracing our debate today and giving us the benefit of his feelings on this matter. That is the reason why I stressed at the beginning of my remarks that I did not want to discourage emigration, provided it was for good reasons—that restlessness which has taken all over the world, quite apart from economic reasons, Scotsmen who have done considerable service for our Commonwealth and other countries where they have landed.
    We see again today the worst kind of reasons which are driving the people of Scotland to accept the inducements which will be given under this Clause. It may well be that because of economic circumstances that we shall spend more than the £186,000 that we spent last year. We may touch the £1½ million mark in order to cope with the rush of people who want to emigrate. I hope that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland intervenes, he will tell us exactly how the Scottish Office is concerned about this continual drain of the best of our people from Scotland, who are so urgently needed there.

    1121
    It is all very well to say that it is a gain for the places to which they go, but when we see the depopulation in the Highlands of Scotland today and the frantic efforts of the Scottish Office in voting money to try to get people back or to stay in the crofting areas, it is fantastic to see these divergent policies of the Government. They should make up their minds to do what they can to ensure that people will have freedom of choice in this matter of whether they are going to stay in Scotland or emigrate, and that the economic future of Scotland will be as assured as that of Canada, so that people can decide on some other basis than that of economic necessity.
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that the debate on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," has clearly shown that we need a migration policy. My hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies who have spoken have shown quite clearly that there is a disproportionately large number of migrants from Scotland. The Overseas Migration Board, which has been looking at this matter, has not been able to give us statistics as reliable as we would wish, but there is no reason to doubt that Scottish representatives have shown clearly that it is a mater that ought to be looked at more fully.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the fact that we ought to encourage migration in family units. That idea was expressed before. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) suggest that we might do it on a family basis through the medium of the local authorities taking those people off their housing lists. That is very revealing because we on this side of the Committee have been saying that the Rent Bill, far from solving the housing problem, will create a greater one, and the hon. Gentleman has given us evidence to support that.
    Already the Government have it in their power to do something about this. If the hon. Gentleman will look back on the records he will see that there was a scheme, when the Government were interested in developing migration, the 3,000 families scheme of people who went to Canada. I wonder whether that cannot be looked at again in order that the family basis in underdeveloped territories
    1122
    occupied by the Crown may be further exploited, by families being sent as units to develop those territories or unoccupied private land suitable for farming. When we talk about the spirit of adventure, that is the kind of opportunity that we want to create. I recommend that to the Under-Secretary.
    I could say more about this but we are anxious to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, particularly in reply to those hon. Members who represent constituencies north of the Border. I hope that he will be in a position to say that there will be more consideration given to this matter and a decided policy put forward. I am interested to know that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) has joined me in suggesting that the Overseas Migration Board needs greater power. I am glad to have made a convert of him, and I make that suggestion to the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. Alport: Perhaps I may now reply to the many interesting points that have been raised in this debate. First, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) will send in details of the scheme to which he referred, because I am sure that that would be of great interest, not only to my Department but to the Overseas Migration Board. Again, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) that the points which he has raised will be considered.
    I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was basing his remarks in some degree upon a recent article in the Manchester Guardian, but that article does not entirely represent the present practice. It is true that, from time to time, the Ministry of Labour—which is naturally the Department concerned with this information—informs the High Commissioners' offices of those skills, trades and industries which we feel should not be over-recruited at any particular time. I understand that it is not true that there is at present any embargo on the recruitment of stenographers to go overseas.
    Admittedly this is not a cut-and-dried, hard-and-fast system, but it is a very effective one and, if I may say so, a very British system. It means that the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister

    1123
    of Labour and the High Commissioners' offices work closely together to ensure that, whilst there is as much elasticity as possible in the appeal to migrants from this country, there is, at the same time, sufficient control to ensure that the interests of any area or industry are not unduly hampered.
    I feel some diffidence in the responsibility which falls to me to speak up for Scotland, because I feel that many of the remarks made about the present and future position of that great country do less than justice to the Scottish tradition, and to the contribution which Scotsmen have made over many centuries when the wanderlust has taken them to civilisations overseas. From the days of the Darien Company onwards there has always been a strong interest in Scotland in overseas expansion in its various forms.
    The point raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) is one which I accept as being extremely important. We are most concerned to ensure that the information available upon which to base an approach to migration policy is as full as circumstances permit, but we must, I think, keep a sense of proportion. As I said in the Second Reading debate, and as I hope I may now say again, we do not want to clutter up the routine of arrival in and departure from this country with unnecessary questionnaires and red tape, and if we can find means of achieving the sort of information which we want, particularly the type of sociological information which was referred to, we should take steps to that end.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman get the Chancellor of the Duchy to do this job as well as his other?
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Alport: We shall take every step to see that knowledge of this important subject is improved. I can also give an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the interests of Scotland in this matter will be carefully borne in mind.
    May I say to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison)
    1124
    that the scheme to which she referred was a New Zealand Government scheme and not a United Kingdom scheme. The conditions under which that scheme operates are laid down by the New Zealand Government, and we are not able, apart from putting our views forward, of course, to decide or govern the conditions which may concern it. I thought, and I am sure the Committee did, that the point made by the hon. Lady was an extremely human and interesting one, and, in so far as it concerns schemes in which we are associated with any Commonwealth Government, we shall certainly pay attention to the advice and the views which she expressed.
    To turn now to the problems of Scotland, I do not think that the fears which have been expressed are fully justified. The amount of emigration from this country which is accountable to Scotland is about 12 per cent., and on a basis of population that is not far out. From the point of view of assisted passages, it is 12 per cent. of the breadwinners, and, on average, every breadwinner will take with him two dependants. Therefore, there is at any rate a cross-section by sexes and by ages, although I accept the point made earlier that there may be, and is sometimes, a discrepancy between those under 45 years of age and those over that age. On Second Reading I gave some statistics with regard to the age groups both in respect of Australia and Canada.
    Mr. Lawson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How can he be so accurate when it is admitted that we are so vague and so ill-informed on the question of the migration of people from and to this country?
    Mr. Alport: I hope I made it clear that I was referring to assisted passages. The assisted passage scheme to Australia plays a very big part and enables us to get information which I do not say reflects completely the whole field of migration, but which, at any rate, gives us a pretty good indication of how migration is spread over the various sections.
    It is not true that we do not have information about certain important aspects of this matter. For instance, we have information about those who are returning to this country from Commonwealth countries. That information is

    1125
    required and processed by the Board of Trade. Although it is inclined to be considerably post-dated, at the same time it gives us an indication over a period of what sort of people are coming back to this country from Commonwealth territories.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: On the matter of the statistics about assisted passages, can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication whether the importing authorities select skilled men, with the result that Scotland is left with an unbalance of skilled men, because that is one of our problems?
    Mr. Alport: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point and, indeed, it is a point that has been made elsewhere. Our general information is that although, naturally, in many circumstances the recruiting country is anxious to bring over skilled migrants, it does not by any means follow that every emigrant who goes from this country is skilled, or indeed that they are making what, from our point of view, are unhealthy inroads into the skilled and technical resources of this country.
    The real reason, so far as we can estimate at the present time, why there has been increased concern over this point is that with the increase in migration generally, which has undoubtedly taken place in recent months, a larger number of skilled men have gone with the general body of migrants. But we have no indication at present that the proportion of skilled men to unskilled men and to dependants is any different from what it was in the earlier days when the total volume of migration was less.
    I have tried to reassure the Scottish Members who have spoken that I do not believe the present process provides any long-term danger to Scottish prosperity or to the future of Scotland. I am sure they will be the first to recognise that, as we have said earlier, irrespective of any economic conditions that may in any specific era exist in Scotland, migration from that country is a characteristic of the Scottish race.
    I say this also to those hon. Members. Supposing things were getting out of balance, would they propose to this House that Scotland should be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom? Should we apply restrictions to the movements of our Scottish friends
    1126
    which we would not apply to the English or Welsh or anyone else? I am certain that is not their intention. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why suggest it"?] Because that was the logical conclusion from the arguments put forward.
    In these circumstances I believe that hon. Members have not entirely followed the direct interests of Scotland in this matter. I speak as one who is half Scots. I do not think it is right to portray Scotland as being unable or unlikely in the future to play her real part in the contribution which this country is making, through migration, to the development of the great Commonwealth, and to those countries with which Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom have had long associations of population, race and culture.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he deal with this point? He mentioned the figure of 12 per cent. of the assisted passages scheme. Were those assisted passages to Australia? Or were they to Canada, which is mainly the place that is causing concern to Scotland?
    Mr. Alport: To Australia. It is true, however, and I made the point during the Second Reading debate, that a great deal of the movement of population is between Scotland and Canada. The fact is, however, that there is no reason to suppose that the proportion of overall migration is different, according to the figures available at present. In fact we believe it to be the same figure of 12 per cent. so far as the Scottish contribution is concerned.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(SHORT TITLE AND CITATION.)
    Mr. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "Empire" and insert "Commonwealth."
    I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that we ought to have this Amendment made. I said during the Second Reading debate that the term "Empire" was offensive to me, and I believe it will be offensive to other people who look at its historic derivation. The word "Empire" came from the system of the feudal lords and implied to direct, to rule. It cannot be denied that we

    1127
    carried that outlook overseas. In fact, the Empire was something which we acquired by conquest, and many of the indigenous peoples still believe that it means that power is given over them, that we command, that we exercise authority.
    We know that that is not so, and we know also that the word "Dominion" applies equally to those of us who are in the United Kingdom as to those in other parts of the Commonwealth. When the Under-Secretary of State said last Friday that we must think in terms not only of groups within the Commonwealth but of the Commonwealth as a whole, he really gave me the answer that I want, namely, that the Title of the Bill should be changed.
    Although the hon. Gentleman said that many people reverence and value the traditional title of "Empire," I think he would find, if a democratic decision were taken, that those who hold such a view were in the minority. The hon. Gentleman should accept this Amendment on the basis that, being a Commonwealth, we are united by good will and co-operation, not by force. Therefore, I ask him to accept the Amendment.
    Major Patrick Wall: I support the plea made by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). It is surely the desire of both political parties to bring Colonial Dependencies to the state of being self-governing members of the Commonwealth. The Bill is designed to help forward that objective through emigration, and the Measure is brought forward by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
    I feel no shame about the word "Empire," but it is true to say that the Asiatics and the forthcoming African Dominions rather resent it. We must face the fact that soon we shall have more non-European members of the Commonwealth than European, but I see nothing to fear in that. The Commonwealth must expand, and it must obviously expand in that direction. I urge my hon. Friend to accept the Amendment, for it advances the Bill into the future rather than leaves it in the past.
    Mr. B. Harrison: I would also urge my hon. Friend to accept the Amendment. It is said that a rose by any other name smells as sweet, but the "Empire" rose has, unfortunately, reached a rather full-blown state and is not as sweet as it was. We ought to bring the Measure up to date in this manner. The alteration does not mean so much in this country but it means a tremendous amount overseas.
    Mr. Donald Wade: I, also, support the Amendment. The word "Commonwealth" is symbolical. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Alport: As to the problem raised by this point, although a change might be made, it will not remove the fact that the Measure is a re-enactment of a series of Acts which have existed for 37 years and have gone by the old and honoured name of the "Empire Settlement Acts." The change will not make any difference to the form of the Measure. It will have no effect upon whether or not a single person goes overseas from this country. It is merely a matter of changing a form, but I and my noble Friend recognise that these forms are of the greatest importance in dealing with Commonwealth relations.
    I confess that I should have preferred to make the change when, as might be the case in five years' time, we were re-shaping the Measure rather than reenacting the terms of an old one. However, in the circumstances, and having regard to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), my hon. Friends and the representative of the Liberal Party, I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 17, after "the" insert "Commonwealth and".—[Mr. Bottomley.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments (changed to "Commonwealth Settlement Bill); as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

    NEW STREETS ACT, 1951 (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the New Streets Act, 1951, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the first-mentioned Act in the sums payable under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948. or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956. out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Bevins.]
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Mr. Henry Brooke and Mr. Airey Neave discharged from the Committee; and Mr. Freeth and Mr. J. Enoch Powell added.—[Mr. Oakshott]

  KENYA (DETAINEES' FRANCHISE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. John Dugdale: Last Wednesday, for a short period during Question Time, we discussed a matter which is of very great importance to the people of Kenya, namely, the manner in which they should be allowed to exercise their votes at the forthcoming elections. We have just been discussing various matters connected with the Commonwealth and I make no apology for discussing this particular Commonwealth matter tonight. It is strictly limited to one subject, the regulations governing the franchise in Kenya at the next elections.
  Many of us were very disturbed at the line taken by the Under-Secretary during Question Time last Wednesday. I am not really certain what he meant and I want him to tell us tonight. In dealing with the regulations I asked him:
  "Does he think that it is in accordance with democratic principles, or is he in this case abrogating all democratic principles?"
  He replied:
  "No. I am saying that this is in the best interests of all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 167.]
  That answer was not very clear.
  I believe that it is not in the best interests of the people of Kenya that so many should be deprived of the franchise. I want to quote the regulations, which should appear in HANSARD, because they are very serious. They are regulations the like of which I have never heard in any country for whose government Great Britain is responsible.
  They are:
  "No African shall be included in the register for any electoral area who … is the subject of a restriction order made under the Deportation (Immigrant British Subjects) Ordinance, 1949, or is or has been the subject of a detention order made under the Emergency Regulations, 1952."
  They continue:
  "Provided that a Provincial Commissioner may in any particular case remove such disqualification in respect of an African who has been, but is no longer, detained by virtue of a detention order made as aforesaid, being the Provincial Commissioner of the province in which such African normally resides."

  1131
  What does this mean? It means that people who have been detained without any trial whatever—simply because they are suspected persons, and on no other ground at all—are to be deprived of the vote. On 30th November last year there were 32,000 detainees. They were not convicted criminals, yet they are deprived of the vote. On what grounds is this so?
  It becomes a far more serious matter when we look at the question of the detainees who have been released. These people have been released because they are no longer suspect, yet they are still deprived of their vote unless the Provincial Commissioner removes the disqualification. There is no compulsion upon him to do so. If he feels that he does not want to remove it they remain disqualified. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs, to leave it to the will of an official to say whether certain people may or may not have the right to express their views at an election. That includes even the people who have been released after an investigation by the Advisory Committee who should be presumed, at any rate prima facie, to be guiltless, and no longer suspect.
  I come now to Section 19 of the Ordinance, which is even more extraordinary. It reads:
  "Notwithstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, no person being a member of the Kikuyu, Embu or Meru tribe shall be eligible to he registered as a voter unless the district commissioner of the district in which such person normally resides certifies in writing that such person, on account of his loyal and active support of the Government in the Emergency, may be so registered and the grant or refusal of any certificate under this sub-section shall lie in the absolute discretion of the district commissioner.
  (2) A district commissioner, who has granted a certificate in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, may, on account of disloyalty, mistake as to identity or otherwise, or misrepresentation, or for other good and sufficient cause, at any time cancel in writing such certificate and thereafter the person to whom such certificate was granted shall not be registered as a voter or, if such person has already been so registered, the name of such person shall be deleted from the register.
  (3) Neither the grant nor the refusal nor the cancellation of any certificate under this section shall be called in question in any court or proceedings whatsoever."
  Words fail me to describe what I think of an Ordinance which not only gives to an official the power to disqualify
  1132
  thousands of people belonging to certain tribes from the franchise but, at the same time, prevents the courts from interfering in any way with the decision of the official. If this had happened in England we should have heard a great deal about it. This House would have been full at this moment or, more probably, there would have been a call for an Adjournment debate upon a matter of urgent public importance, and a debate would have taken place in the middle of the afternoon. But because this happens in Kenya not quite so many hon. Members are interested as there would otherwise be.
  It may be said that there is a crisis in Kenya, and that during a crisis there need be less respect for the ordinary procedure of the courts than there would otherwise be. There is certainly a crisis there, but that is no justification for depriving a quarter of the population of a vote unless the official concerned says that it may vote.
  I do not think that we often feel that we are behind the Poles in matters of democracy, but Mr. Gomulka has recently had an election in Poland, and I do not think that he had any test such as this. He certainly had a far graver crisis, because he had Russian guns and tanks on his frontiers and he was in great danger—yet he carried out that election in a more democratic manner, apparently, than is likely to be the case in the elections in Kenya, according to this Ordinance.
  It is not only a question of people being deprived of the franchise because they are disloyal; they have actually to be actively loyal. What would happen in this country were there such a rule? It would mean that well-known leaders of the Communist Party in this country would have to prove that they were actively loyal to this country, and they would obviously find that exceedingly difficult to prove. If they could not prove it, neither they nor any of their followers would have a vote; yet we allow them to vote here and we deprive of a vote all these people in Kenya who have not passed this loyalty test.
  We are supposed to be leaders of democracy. We are supposed to be an example to these countries which are hesitating whether they shall join the democratic camp or the Communist camp. I do not believe that this is the kind of

  1133
  way in which we should give them a lead. If we give a lead in this direction it is likely that they may have second thoughts about joining the democratic camp and may join the Communist camp instead.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to repeal this wrong-headed and stupid Ordinance, which is completely out of keeping with the whole British way of life and with all that this House stands for.
  10.41 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have only very recently been called upon to concern myself officially with the matters which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has been discussing this evening. Although I have, ever since I entered this House, taken a deep interest in colonial matters, I have approached my study of the origins and the background of this legislation which the right hon. Gentleman has called in question with what I hope is a fresh and unprejudiced mind.
  I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me to go into the reasons why, in the conditions of emergency in Kenya, where the whole structure of government and the orderly life of people of all races was threatened by a resurgence of barbarism—why it was necessary, in those conditions, to detain certain people in the public interest. I believe that that was necessary, just as I believe that the Government of Kenya have clone, and are doing, their utmost to redeem those who have been duped by Mau Mau and return them to play a useful part in a peaceful society.
  Nor do I believe—although I may be wrong in this—that the right hon. Gentleman seriously holds the view that in the conditions in Kenya today it is intolerable, because it is not consonant with our democratic principles, to make the right to vote, in these first African elections on an individual franchise, something to be earned rather than something automatically granted to all adult Africans.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, except in a very narrow coastal belt, Western European influences in East Africa have been at work for little over half a century as contrasted with the long evolution of our own institutions in this country or, indeed, the
  1134
  centuries of contact and the spread of education and experience in certain other Colonial Territories.
  We are here initiating an important experiment in the development of representative institutions. The African in Kenya, as Mau Mau itself demonstrated, has yet to emerge completely from his tribal past. He is only beginning, as far as the mass of the people are concerned, to think and act as an individual and not as a pliable unit in a larger group.
  The passage from collective responsibility to individual judgment cannot be brusque without causing serious strains. In the electoral field it can lead very easily to demagogy and indeed to corruption. In Kenya, the transition has been deliberately made from the submission of a panel of names by district councils, acting as sounding boards of local opinion, in 1948, to the creation in 1952 of electoral colleges of representative men voting by secret ballot. Now, under the scheme worked out by Mr. Coutts, individual Africans are to vote directly for the first time by secret ballot for one candidate or another in accordance with their individual judgment of the policies put forward by those candidates.
  It seems to me right and well suited to the conditions in Kenya that on this occasion the franchise should be limited to those who can reasonably be expected to be capable of exercising an individual judgment and that their claims to do so should be based on education, demonstrated capacity to attain an individual position of authority or material success, experience of responsibility of various kinds and similar criteria.
  The point I wish to make is that by introducing this system into Kenya the Government have not deprived anyone of the right to vote; its introduction simply extends the right—and, indeed, that duty—to those best fitted to exercise it.
  Mr. DugdaleI am not disputing the whole basis of the franchise—that is quite another question—but will the hon. Gentleman limit himself exclusively to those people who come under this particular section?
  Mr. Profumo: I was coming to that, but I thought it wise to ask the right hon. Member if he would share my view, first, that a qualitative franchise for Africans in Kenya today is the right

  1135
  system to introduce at the present time. We have to settle that before we get down to the basic problem and I think the right hon. Member has agreed that he will accept that fact—
  Mr. Dugdale: No; I said that I did not want to discuss that tonight.
  Mr. Profumo: If the right hon. Member will allow me to make this point—my argument does to some extent depend upon it—though even if the conception of a qualitative franchise is accepted I do concede that there could be considerable scope for debate on the precise qualifications to be adopted at this stage.
  I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate on Kenya on 6th June when although this subject was touched on briefly by several hon. Members it was never seriously maintained that Mr. Coutts's proposals were at variance in any fundamental respect with the views of the majority of the African witnesses he had heard.
  As we have not much time, however, I will go straight to the aspects of the system specially raised by the right hon. Member. In the discussions which Mr. Coutts had all over the country particular stress was laid by those Africans who had stood firm against the onslaught of Mau Mau that only those who were loyal should be permitted to qualify to vote in the forthcoming elections and I think it would be difficult to quarrel with that contention. The Kikuyu spokesman, Mr. Mathu, observed in his speech in the Legislative Council on this Bill, that he agreed with the provisions in it which applied particularly to K.E.M. tribes.
  It is, admittedly, very difficult to devise any scientific test of loyalty or any method of determining such a qualification judicially. The Kenya Government considered that to insist that no would-be voter had ever taken an oath—as the Africans suggested—would be too restrictive, since many took an oath under overwhelming compulsion and some of those originally swept into Mau Mau had demonstrated their renunciation of it by active loyalty to the Government.
  It was, therefore, decided that active support to the Crown during the emergency should be the test of fitness to qualify for registration for this first elec-
  1136
  tion for the Kikuyu, Embu and Meru. I think it follows quite logically that those detained in the interest of preserving public order should also fail to qualify. Powers of detention were exercised to curb the power for evil of those who were believed to have adopted the aims and methods of Mau Mau even though the information against them came from witnesses, such as accomplices or those afraid to testify in court, whose evidence could not sustain a judicial charge against them.
  If persons were detained who believed they were wrongly detained they had—and exercised—the right of appeal to the Advisory Committee, which considered most carefully whether their detention was necessary in the interests of public order. This Committee has already heard about 2,400 appeals and has recommended more than 1,000 detainees for release. Many thousands have been redeemed through the rehabilitation process and are now at liberty with the opportunity to work their way back to full acceptance by their communities—and I want to stress that very much. Many thousands more are on their way through this process now, but I believe, together with the loyal Kikuyu they must be required to show by their conduct over a period that they have fully abjured their attachment to Mau Mau. Thus, all ex-detainees have been required to obtain clearance certificates and, in fact, no ex-detainee has applied for removal of such disqualification.
  The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech by asking whether I would take some action to repeal this law. With all respect to him, this is an academic point, since now the registration of voters has finished and, therefore, it would not be any good; it is too late to do anything about it. But I wish to support the action which has been taken. The right hon. Gentleman also talked about a quarter of the population being deprived of their vote because of these regulations. I think we should try—
  Mr. Dugdale: I said that a quarter were liable to be deprived of it. How many are actually deprived, I do not know.
  Mr. Profumo: I am sorry. I did not mean to be inaccurate. What the right hon. Gentleman says is much better.

  1137
  We should try to see whether we can get this into its perspective. We cannot assume that anything like all those who are or have been detained would otherwise have qualified for registration or would have wished to register. In the Central Province, for example, the proportion of registered voters to the total adult population is 7·4 per cent. It seems reasonable to assume that no larger a proportion of the detainees would, if allowed to do so, have qualified for registration or have wished to register, and on this basis it is fair to say that no more than 5,000 or 6,000 people are disqualified from voting because they have been detainees.
  Since, as I have maintained, the loyalty test could not be made susceptible of application by a court of law, it is surely best that this discretion should be exercised by the Governor's representatives. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think of the Provincial Administration, it really is regarded by the great majority of law-abiding Africans as an impartial and sympathetic authority.
  1138
  Africans would prefer the decision to rest with such an authority rather than with a tribunal of the sort proposed by Mr. Coutts.
  In conclusion, I would like to say this: in the immediate aftermath of the agony which Kenya has suffered under the brutal scourge of Mau Mau I am satisfied that these disqualifications are right and fully justified. As the situation is restored, and as the detainees are reabsorbed in the life of the country, a new situation will, I believe, be established.
  Then we can hope, with the restoration of confidence, that in the review which has been promised of these arrangements before the next elections, a further step can be taken in bringing back those affected by Mau Mau into fuller participation in the life and affairs of the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Compassionate Release Applications
  Compassionate Release Applications
  Air Branch, R.N.V.R. (Disbandment)
  Air Branch, R.N.V.R. (Disbandment)
  Sales to French Navy
  Sales to French Navy
TRANSPORT
  Motor Fuel Rationing
  Motor Fuel Rationing
  Accidents (Investigation Officers)
  Accidents (Investigation Officers)
  Traffic Speed, Central London
  Traffic Speed, Central London
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Goods Vehicles (Fare-Paying Passengers)
  Goods Vehicles (Fare-Paying Passengers)
  British Transport Commission (Pensions)
  British Transport Commission (Pensions)
  Bus Services, Scotland
  Bus Services, Scotland
SHIPPING
  Fishing Vessels (Inflatable Life Rafts)
  Fishing Vessels (Inflatable Life Rafts)
  Fishery Cruiser "Vaila" (Loss)
  Fishery Cruiser "Vaila" (Loss)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Pilots
  Pilots
  Freight Service, North Atlantic
  Freight Service, North Atlantic
  Noise, London Airport (Earth Banks)
  Noise, London Airport (Earth Banks)
  Aircraft (B.O.A.C. Specification)
  Aircraft (B.O.A.C. Specification)
ROADS
  Maintenance Grants
  Maintenance Grants
  Cromwell Road Extension (Levels)
  Cromwell Road Extension (Levels)
  Casualties
  Casualties
  London (Speed Limit)
  London (Speed Limit)
RAILWAYS
  Central London—London Airport
  Central London—London Airport
  MINISTERS (CONTITUENCY ACTIVITIES)
  MINISTERS (CONTITUENCY ACTIVITIES)
ATOMIC ENERGY
  Transport (Nuclear Power)
  Transport (Nuclear Power)
  United Kingdom and United States (Co-operation)
  United Kingdom and United States (Co-operation)
  Programme
  Programme
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Private Hire Cars (Petrol Allowance)
  Private Hire Cars (Petrol Allowance)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Voluntary Service Engagements
  Voluntary Service Engagements
  British Forces, Jordan
  British Forces, Jordan
  Military Equipment (Sale to Germany)
  Military Equipment (Sale to Germany)
  Defence Policy (Commonwealth Governments)
  Defence Policy (Commonwealth Governments)
ISRAEL
  Gaza Strip and Gulf of Aqaba
  Gaza Strip and Gulf of Aqaba
  ANGLO-ITALIAN PEACE TREATY (LIRE PAYMENTS)
  ANGLO-ITALIAN PEACE TREATY (LIRE PAYMENTS)
  OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES (WESTERN EUROPE)
  OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES (WESTERN EUROPE)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONVENTIONS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONVENTIONS)
AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  African Population (Elections)
  African Population (Elections)
WEST INDIES
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Jamaica (Agricultural Land)
  Jamaica (Agricultural Land)
SINGAPORE
  Child Workers
  Child Workers
  City Council (Expatriate Officers)
  City Council (Expatriate Officers)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  African Housing Board (African Member)
  African Housing Board (African Member)
  Hotel, Ndola (Select Committee Member)
  Hotel, Ndola (Select Committee Member)
  African Rural Development (Capital Expenditure)
  African Rural Development (Capital Expenditure)
  Native Reserve Land, Gwembe
  Native Reserve Land, Gwembe
  Co-operative and Marketing Conference, Lusaka
  Co-operative and Marketing Conference, Lusaka
CYPRUS
  Lord Radcliffe's Proposals
  Lord Radcliffe's Proposals
TANGANYIKA
  Electoral Proposals (Committee's Report)
  Electoral Proposals (Committee's Report)
BRITISH GUIANA
  School Places
  School Places
  Illiteracy and Voting System
  Illiteracy and Voting System
NYASALAND
  Tariff Rebate
  Tariff Rebate
  Secondary Industries, Blantyre and Limbe (Sites)
  Secondary Industries, Blantyre and Limbe (Sites)
SIERRA LEONE
  Rutile Deposits (Development)
  Rutile Deposits (Development)
  Commissioner, United Kingdom
  Commissioner, United Kingdom
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Bananas and Lime Oil (Preferences)
  Bananas and Lime Oil (Preferences)
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Alcohol and Road Accidents
  Alcohol and Road Accidents
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs (Collection)
  Eggs (Collection)
  Farm Improvement Schemes (Grants)
  Farm Improvement Schemes (Grants)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Maintenance Unit, Stoke Heath
  Maintenance Unit, Stoke Heath
  Supplies and Services (Sales to Governments)
  Supplies and Services (Sales to Governments)
EDUCATION
  Qualified Teachers
  Qualified Teachers
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Voluntary Aided and Special Agreement Schools
  Voluntary Aided and Special Agreement Schools
HOME DEPARTMENT
  London Taxi-Cabs (Licensing)
  London Taxi-Cabs (Licensing)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.

DEFENCE: WESTERN GERMANY'S CONTRIBUTION
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had given Notice of the following Question:
[To ask Her Majesty's Government What is Western Germany's present contribution in man-power to the defence of Western Germany, and how this contribution compares in men and weapons with that of Britain.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vansittart is unfortunately, not well and he asks leave to postpone his Question.

EGYPT: COMPENSATION FOR EXPELLED BRITONS
2.37 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the Answer given to a Question in this House on 5th December regarding the plight of British subjects expelled from Egypt: (1) whether Her Majesty's Government can now make a further general statement; (2) more particularly, what is contemplated to secure compensation for all property and funds seized from
250
these unfortunate and completely innocent people; (3) whether moral responsibility for these losses does not admittedly rest with Her Majesty's Government; (4) whether, as these British subjects are the victims of Egyptian Government policy, it would not be reasonable, as a matter of practical urgency, to consider immediately whether the-e are no Egyptian funds in this country which might be used for their benefit.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be in a position to make a full statement on this subject in the course of the next few days. Perhaps the noble Lord will be willing to await that statement.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer and welcome the prospect of the statement which he has foreshadowed. Is he aware, however, that his Answer will cause some disappointment, not only to those people who are suffering in this expulsion from Egypt but also to the general public? That is my first supplementary question. My second one is this. I had hoped that the noble Earl would have given some reply on the point in ray original Question of moral responsibility. If he is not in a position to do so, I propose to press that point—perhaps I had better wait until he answers. Last of all, if we cannot gel something which satisfies these unfortunate people, I feel it would be probably the wish of the House that this matter should be put down in the form either of a Motion or of something of the kind in the near future in order to see how the House feels about it. So the first point is this question of disappointment. The second one I should like to press is the question of moral responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one further supplementary question—it is a simple one. By "in the course of the next few days" does he mean to-morrow, which is the last sitting day of this week, or one day next week? I think we are all anxious to have the statement as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, first, I cannot give a categorical assent as to whether the statement will in fact be made to-morrow. I have been informed only that the statement will be made, as I said in my original Answer to the Question, in the course of the next two or three days. I regret that I cannot say more. I will naturally bring the noble Earl's remark to the attention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. With regard to Lord Killearn's two supplementary questions, I cannot quite see why my original Answer should cause alarm and despondency among those unfortunate people—
LORD KILLEARN: With all respect, I did not use the word "despondency"; I said "disappointment".
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I apologise to the noble Lord; but that, I thought, was really the meaning behind it. However, I cannot quite see how my statement should cause disappointement. By "the next two or three days" I do in fact mean "the next two or three days," and as it will be a full statement, I can only hope that it will be of more satisfaction to these unfortunate people. With regard to moral responsibility, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will naturally take his remarks into full consideration.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he appreciates the terrific implications involved, if Her Majesty's Government do not admit moral liability as affects the position of all British subjects throughout the world, especially those resident abroad?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I regret that I cannot anticipate in any way the statement which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will be making.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we are not anticipating in any way the statement. The question applies to those expelled from Egypt and the Minister's reply applies to them, but will the Lord President of the Council consider including also in his statement those who have not been expelled from Egypt but who have hitherto been drawing pensions from the Egyptian authorities and
252
who are now left bereft? They are in a different class.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I will gladly bring the remarks of the noble Lord to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I am Chairman of the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society, and know a good deal about this matter. I have just come down from Scotland. They are very willing to help up there. I can give your Lordships the full true story. We have not enough money to support those people, of whom approximately 6,000 are Maltese. What I want to know, please, is: What are the Government going to do about it?—because we have not enough money. We have £170,000, and no more, of which sum the Government gave £100,000. I have raised £70,000 by appeal. What are the Government going to do?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I regret that I must reiterate that I cannot anticipate the statement of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I will, however, bring the noble Lord's remarks to his attention.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, arising out of the question of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye on pensions, may I ask whether, at the same time, the noble Earl will, in particular, consider widows' pensions? He may be aware that there are widows whose husbands worked for years and years in Egypt and for Egypt, whose pensions have suddenly ceased and who are now in great distress? Will he kindly consider their case also?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I greatly sympathise with the people concerned in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I will certainly bring that point to the attention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.43 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before we proceed to the Business on the Order Paper I should like to make a brief statement about certain changes in the Business of the House which I think have been rendered necessary by the fact that

253
the Committee stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill has taken rather longer than was, perhaps, anticipated. It is now proposed that the Committee stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill should go on to-morrow until seven o'clock. I understand that it is the wish of the Opposition that we should not proceed further to-morrow, and that we should conclude the Bill on Tuesday next. That will necessitate two other alterations. The Second Reading of the Transport (Railway Finances) Bill will be postponed from to-morrow, Thursday, for a week, until Thursday, February 7, and the Committee stage of the Shops Bill will be postponed for a week, from Tuesday next until Tuesday, February 12. I think the House will probably agree—at least I hope it will—that it will be better to complete the Committee stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill and have it out of the way before we proceed further with the other Bills.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am agreeable to the changes which are made. I understand that it will cause inconvenience to some noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House, but one has to make the best possible arrangements in all the circumstances. As to the time to be occupied with the Committee stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill, so much will depend upon the progress made with the Committee stage of the Ghana Independence Bill to-morrow. Those noble Lords on my side who are interested in the Cinematograph Films Bill feel that it is no use trying to complete that Committee stage to-morrow, when we shall not be starting on it until more than halfway through the day; that is why we want extra time. We will do our best under those conditions to make it go, but we must have adequate consideration of the Ghana Independence Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. Of course, we desire as much as he does that adequate time should be given to the consideration of all business. I am only sorry that the Cinematograph Films Bill should have taken so long; but there were important points to be discussed, and I am sure the House will understand.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY
2.45 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of long-term assurances for agriculture as laid down in Command Paper 23. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last time we had a debate on agriculture—more or less a general debate—was on a Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough on April 11 of last year, dealing with the February Price Review. I do not think it would be overstating the case to say that on re-reading his speech one could find in it little expression of confidence in the determinations of that Review or in the intentions of Her Majesty's Government—in fact, he ended on a rather gloomy note by quoting the words of Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village:
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay."
He, among others during that debate, asked about the long-term policy for agriculture which was foreshadowed in the last paragraph of that price Review. To-day, we are discussing that long-term policy, and while I could not possibly hope that the noble Viscount will be happy about it, one hopes that perhaps he may see a little hope now amid the gloom. But it is, I think, well to remember that this White Paper shows no radical and drastic change of policy. I do not think that that in itself is any criticism of it. After all, the starting point for the new guarantees is, I think I am right in saying, the determinations of that Review which we were discussing nearly a year ago. Of course, there have been improvements in the methods of the administration of those guarantees, and there are new factors in this Review, but I think that the basic guarantees are on the same basis.
I think the noble Viscount will agree with me that the atmosphere in the industry generally to-day is very different from what it was at that time. Possibly the reason for that may be that that Price Review was not in itself as bad as some people might have led us to believe, and that perhaps the underlying difficulties were not so much the Review itself but a general fear as to the future. I think that the House will agree that this White

255
Paper has had a good reception throughout the farming industry. I should just like to read one extract from the Farmer's Weekly because, during that other debate, we had read a considerable number of extracts from farming papers, possibly to emphasise another point of view. The Farmer's Weekly of November 30 said:
"For years we have been asking for two things, for stability, so that we should know where we are going and for capital resources to implement our progress. Here they are in as full measure as reasonable men should ask for …"
And:
"We doubt if any other industry can look forward to so long a period of equal stability. A possible, but by no means automatic, cut of 6d. in the pound to cover increased efficiency is a small price to pay for the stability and confidence of a known future."
There are a number of other comments which I could read, but they are all in much the same vein and I will not weary your Lordships with them.
This White Paper really divides itself into two parts, the first on the long-term guarantees and the second dealing with the farm improvements scheme. Taking first the long-term guarantees, the White Paper lays down that the total return guaranteed to the farmers, estimated for this year at £1,150 million, cannot be cut by more than 2½ per cent. or 6d. in the £ after adding or subtracting any increase or decrease in costs; and that commodity prices cannot be reduced by more than 4 per cent. in any one year, with a maximum of 9 per cent. in three years for livestock. Also, it alters the timing of the Price Review on crops so that prices are dealt with in respect of the coming harvest instead of that for a year ahead, which will allow the Review to take a much more up-to-date note of any alterations in costs.
This part of the Act remedies what was a definite weakness in the 1947 Act as regards future prices. I know that under that Act prices were announced for several years ahead, depending on the type of commodity, but they were at all times unrealistic and I do not think any farmer could possibly have based his production on the prices that were announced at any of the Price Reviews since that Act. He always relied on getting a good deal out of the current Price Review. This difficulty was emphasised as we came into the time of plenty and a freer economy.
256
It still allows a certain amount of adjustment in prices to be made from year to year, which I believe is essential in any scheme concerned with the long-term production of agricultural produce; but, on the other hand, it gives the security necessary to allow the farmer to know sufficiently far ahead as to be able to plan his production on sound lines.
Then we come to the second part of the White Paper—the farm improvement scheme, which basically is for a 33⅓ per cent. grant for the provision and improvement of the permanent fixed equipment of the farms of this country. I think this is a most valuable new grant. Many of our farms were built a hundred or two hundred years ago, or even longer, and since that time there has been an agricultural revolution, so that it is impossible to use efficiently, in those old buildings, the labour and equipment of the modern farm. I believe that this grant will be of particular value to the small farmer who does not get the benefit of tax and other reliefs which the large farmer gets. It should therefore be a particular help to him, although, of course, there may be difficulties in some cases about the credit for the part that he has to raise himself. I do not, however, propose to go into that question at the moment.
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, is speaking after me, and I wish to make four points on this part of the White Paper. First, I feel it is extremely important that a statement should be made as soon as possible exactly defining the type of buildings and works which may be covered or may possibly be included to benefit under these grants. Then, I feel that there should be some way in which a person can go ahead with the work at his own risk in anticipation of the grant, so that if he does go ahead he will not automatically be excluded from the grant when the scheme becomes law. Because the trouble is that at the moment there is a virtual standstill on farm improvements. I know that one can argue that somebody who was going to put up, say, a barn or something of that kind should go ahead with it, because he would have done so, with or without this scheme; but I think that that is going against the whole of human nature. One cannot expect anybody to go ahead if he feels that by waiting he may possibly be entitled to a grant. I hope, too, that when

257
this scheme is produced the procedure under it will be simple. Its main object is to help the small farmer, and one does not want a long and complicated procedure for qualifying for these grants, involving a lot of tendering, possibly also the employment of architects, and things of that kind. One wants the operation made as simple as possible. I feel, too, that it is particularly important that the scheme should allow for work to be done by the farmers' own labour where that is possible.
The second point that I should like to raise is the question of efficiency, because the main idea of this grant is to improve the efficiency of our farms. It may be difficult to define whether or not a certain work will or will not improve the efficiency of a farm sufficiently to qualify for the grant. That point may lead to a lot of argument. On that point I should like to bring to the notice of the noble Earl the question of work study, which I believe should be gone into considerably, for we are now going to put up new buildings and we want to make certain that those buildings really help efficiency and cut clown as much as possible the amount of labour needed on the farm. A tremendous amount of work and research has been put into this work study, as the noble Earl will know only too well. A most interesting paper was read by Mr. Currie at the Imperial Chemical Industries conference on agriculture at Brighton. I feel that it would be a help if those people who have to approve these schemes could go into this subject and be qualified to advise the farmer on that side of the problem.
The third point I wish to make is a short plea for horticulture. Horticulture is included, or will be included, in regard to buildings of the type which would be common to a horticultural establishment and to a farm. I am making a plea for the more specialised buildings, such as gas stores, which would be a great help to horticulture. It is a very important industry and it has to meet, probably, a more direct competition than any other side of the agricultural industry. There are certain other things which I think might also be considered with a view to increasing efficiency, such as irrigation and greenhouses, and also the conversion of some of the heating appliances from solid fuel to oil. The latter point is perhaps
258
not very topical at the moment, but possibly it could be borne in mind until a later date, when one hopes that the situation will have changed.
The fourth point I wish to make is this. About 57 per cent. of the land of this country is rented land. Therefore a considerable number of the improvements that should be done under this scheme will have to be done by the owners of those farms. I feel that as long as the rents of land remain as unrealistic as they are now (I believe that on the average they are producing a return of about I per cent. on the capital invested), it is difficult to imagine that there will be a tremendous rush to invest more money in improving buildings. That is unlikely when the basic economy is unsound. I know that the noble Earl who is to reply may say that the remedy is in the hands of the owners, and that they can put up rents. But the solution is not quite so simple as that, because under the present system of arbitration rents awarded in those cases are usually very much lower than what one might call the free market value, which I feel ought to be the basis of rents. In my opinion, until something is done on those lines, that side of the policy may be held up; and it is a side which should not be held up because it is an important part of the whole.
Altogether, I think that the Government's plan is a very good plan indeed. But it does not, of course, stand alone: there are many other Acts and measures designed to help the countryside and the farmer. To quote only a few, there are the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Act, the new Silo Subsidies Act, the Egg Marketing Scheme, the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, the new Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill, and the water and sewerage grants. Altogether, these steps amount to formidable programme to improve the lot of the one million people who work in agriculture and others who live in the countryside. This has not been the work of one Government but of successive Governments, though I think the present Government may claim a fair share of credit.
But, of course, the policy has met with a certain amount of criticism. No flags were raised in the offices of the Economist; there was no "Mafeking

259
Night" in Printing House Square. What I was surprised to read, however, was a short extract from a speech by the President of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to read a short Press report of that speech. After saying that
"he regarded some farmers' optimism over the Government's long-term agricultural proposals as completely unjustified",
he went on:
"I say deliberately that I think the Government's proposals will lead to a small and impoverished agriculture in the long run … It is clearly the Government's intention gradually to reduce State support to the industry, and British farmers will be expected to compete with low farm prices abroad … If the Government reduced the total value of the guarantees by 2½ per cent., as the new assurances allow, farmers' incomes could be reduced by £29 million in the next twelve months".
That is his opinion, though I personally think it is against the weight of the evidence. He went on to say:
"When this obtains is the farm worker to be made the scapegoat, and will the employers try and take it out of him? Farmers really should not get enthusiastic about this Government".
I should like to take up the speaker's point as to employers, "taking it out of" workers. Apart from the fact that I think it would be most unlikely that they would do that, under this particular scheme any increase in wages would be automatically allowed as an expense: it would automatically put up the global figure. So I consider that that remark which I have just quoted is completely unjustified, in view of this White Paper. And I do not think it helps at all that there should be this dissension within the industry, when it is essential at the moment that we should try to get the utmost confidence into the industry.
By and large, I think that the agricultural industry has responded to the help given, and has a record of which it can be justly proud. Production is high, and it has been steadily increasing. As Sir James Turner has said, it is now saving £400 million in foreign exchange over and above what would be saved at the 1939 level of production. In my view, this is a record of which the
260
industry can justifiably be proud. I think we should congratulate the farmers and the farm workers, and also the "backroom boys" of the industry, who in their research and work connected therewith have done so much to improve yields and the production generally of this country. I do not hold the view that agriculture is dealing with a limited and fixed market. We have in this country a gradually improving standard of living which will in itself create an increased demand for food, particularly for livestock products.
In this connection, it is interesting to compare the difference in our consumption of one or two of the main items with consumption in the United States. In the United States they eat per head, 50 per cent. more meat, 70 per cent. more fish and poultry, and 80 per cent. more eggs. I agree that they eat less wheat and potatoes, but by and large I think it shows that there should be an expanding market in this country for the products of agriculture, provided that our agriculture can reduce its costs, produce the high quality goods that will be required, improve its self-sufficiency and cut down the large amount of imported feeding-stuffs and make greater use both of the feeding-stuffs produced here and of the most valuable of all our assets, our grasslands. Although the hope is expressed in the White Paper that this will come about, I cannot see anything that will necessarily cause it to come about. Nevertheless, I believe that this is the line on which we must work. This policy, in the long run, should allow the industry to plan ahead and to modernise its fixed equipment, so that it can use its labour efficiently. By so doing, it can make an even greater contribution to improving the strength of the national economy and the prosperity of the countryside. I have tried to show your Lordships why I think the policy in this White Paper is a sound one and I hope that your Lordships will be able to support this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve, That this House approves the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of long-term assurances for agriculture as laid down in Command Paper 23.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
3.13 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney for moving this helpful Resolution, which I hope your Lordships will accept, and for giving us an opportunity to discuss a subject which I think we all agree is of fundamental importance to agriculture. Some two months have now passed since the publication of the White Paper, and as we dealt there comprehensively with the new long-term assurances I do not propose at this stage in the debate to enlarge upon that part of the Government's new proposals. This will leave me free to say something fresh about a subject which I know will be of very great interest to your Lordships—that is, the farm improvement scheme outlined in the White Paper. Naturally, I cannot give you this afternoon anal details of the scheme—that must await further consideration and discussion here and in another place—but I think that it will be helpful to our debate if I give the details of our proposals so far as they have been worked out at present. To present this clearly will necessarily involve me in the recitation of rather a catalogue, but I am sure your Lordships will be anxious to have these details, and I hope you will therefore bear with me if I sometimes follow this form of presentation.
There can be no doubt about the importance of our proposals in the White Paper for a wide scheme of grants for permanent fixed equipment and long-term improvements of the land. It has often been said, in this House and elsewhere, that agriculture is seriously short of capital and cannot be expected to produce with maximum efficiency without the help of well-designed modern buildings. The Government agree that more money should be invested in permanent equipment; and we hope that these grants will give rise to an extensive modernisation of our British farms over the next ten years.
Following the issue of the White Paper, we have had further consultations with the farmers and landowners; and have also discussed our proposals with the professional bodies concerned with agricul-
262
ture. We now intend, subject to Parliamentary approval of the legislation, to provide grants which, except where grant is also obtained from other sources, will be at a flat rate of 33⅓ per cent. The grants will be subject to certain general conditions, which I shall describe later; and will cover a series of farm improvements which will in the first instance be on the following lines:

(i) erection, alteration, enlargement or reconditioning of permanent farm buildings (other than dwelling-houses), yards, loading banks and stocks. Internal fittings will be excluded; with equipment such as grain driers, which are composed partly of a fixed permanent structure and partly of machinery and fittings, grants will be payable on the structure;

(ii) making and improvement of farm roads and bridges;

(iii) execution of works for or in connection with the supply of electricity to farms for agricultural purposes;

(iv) provision of pens and other fixed equipment for use in connection with the sheltering, gathering, marking, dipping, treatment or feeding of sheep and cattle;

(v) making, restoration, and improvement of permanent fences, walls and gates;

(vi) provision of cattle-grids, including grids on public roads;

(vii) provision of means of sewage disposal, other than from dwelling-houses;

(viii) reclamation of waste land;

(ix) provision of shelter belts;

(x) removal of hedges and banks, filling in of ditches, removal of boulders, tree roots and other like obstructions to cultivation; and, finally,

(xi) claying and marling.

Repairs will rank for grant if they are necessarily associated with improvement work, but not otherwise. Horticulture will be eligible for grant on permanent fixed equipment which is common to agriculture and horticulture, such as stores and yards, but not for specialised horticultural equipment, such as my noble friend has suggested—glasshouses and cold storage equipment.
Now for the general conditions. As stated in the White Paper, grants will be

263
available in respect of all equipped farm units that are economic or could be made so with the improvement proposed. As a general rule, we shall assist the equipment of new holdings on bare land only as part of a scheme of amalgamation. Units which do not at present provide a sufficient livelihood will be considered for grant where it is proposed to amalgamate them with other land to form one or more units which will do so. In such cases, 33⅓ per cent. grant will be available towards certain incidental expenses of amalgamation, including legal and surveying charges and compensation for disturbance to outgoing tenants.
Grant will be given only for improvements which satisfy the following tests. First, the improvements must contribute materially for the period of their life to the efficient working of the farm. Secondly, they must be capable of giving a reasonable return, both in profitability to an occupier over a number of years by way of increase, or prevention of decrease, of annual value. In practice, we shall normally confine assistance to improvements with a life of not less than fifteen years; and we shall expect the cost and extent of the improvement, bearing in mind the character and situation of the holding, not to exceed the provision which a prudent landlord might be expected to make or to be disproportionate to the capacity of the unit to support it. Thirdly, the improvements must be sufficient in scope to enable the fullest advantage to be obtained from the capital outlay; and fourthly, we shall not give grant for a permanent building where it would be more appropriate to rely on a temporary building. Grant will be payable to landlords, owner-occupiers, and tenants who must, where this is necessary under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, obtain the approval of their landlord or of the appropriate Minister.
We have considered carefully whether grant could be paid on work begun before the necessary legislation receives Royal Assent and proposals for work have been formally submitted and approved, but I fear that this would not be practicable. We do intend, however, some time after Easter, to reduce to a minimum the delay after the Bill has received Royal Assent, to receive and consider, without commitment, provisional proposals for work
264
under the scheme, and to make inspections. If the legislation receives Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, we intend that formal applications for grant should be accepted from, say, September 1; and if the proposals have been inspected in advance, it should be possible to give them ready approval so that work can start.
Some owners will, I appreciate, decide that building work which is now ready to start should be postponed until the grants are available next autumn. I realise that this may cause difficulties for farmers and country builders which I do not attempt to minimise. But although there are precedents for retrospective payments, there are very real constitutional objections to the giving of grants in respect of work done before Parliament has discussed and approved the necessary legislation, particularly on a major measure such as this. There also appear to be, in this case, very real practical difficulties. The Scheme covers a wide range of buildings and other improvements; and until the Bill has been approved we are not in a position to give an assurance as to which buildings will be eligible and which will not. Apart from the eligibility of particular classes of improvement, we shall need to consider the holding on which they are to be erected and its existing equipment and farming system before determining whether the project qualifies for grant. Again, eligibility for grant is subject to general conditions in the Bill on which we shall need to have full debates.
Beyond this, I would impress upon your Lordships that this is a ten-year programme of grants for permanent improvements. If we are to create, with the help of the grants, better buildings and better farms, we need carefully-thought-out proposals from the landowners and owner-occupiers. We ourselves must also give careful thought to proposals submitted, to ensure that they are the best that can be devised from the point of view of long-term efficiency. Therefore, each proposal will have to be inspected by the Ministry's technical staff and discussed with the applicant before it can be approved for grant and work started. I am sure your Lordships would be with me in insisting on this condition and in rejecting the suggestion that people should go ahead with their

265
building plans without inspection in the hope that the work will later be found to be satisfactory and will be covered by the terms of the Bill as finally approved. It is fair to say that many of the projects on which people are anxious to start at once were drawn up before the scheme of grants was announced last November; and I think it is a reasonable assumption that the people concerned were prepared, at that time, to go ahead without the grant.
The House will, I hope, find these arguments compelling, and it is only to complete the picture that I would mention the administrative difficulties of trying to deal with applications for grants before we are ready. As your Lordships will know, the Ministry's local administration is being considerably reorganized, in that divisional offices are being established in the place of existing county offices and new regional controllers are being appointed as from April 1. The Agricultural Land Service, on whom the main burden of inspection under this scheme will fall, is also being reorganised on a two-tier structure, so that between now and April 1 there will be a considerable movement of both people and offices. This re-deployment of our resources will give us a streamlined local organisation far better able to deal with the great volume of day-to-day work that will arise under this scheme. Between May and September there will be much to be done in inspecting proposals and getting them into shape so that the scheme can get off to a really good start after the harvest. When it does get into its stride we expect to be handling in England and Wales alone something like 20,000 applications each year, and this will be a formidable task.
From what I have said, people in the country will, I hope, now know where they stand in relation to grants and will be able to make their plans for the future accordingly. Work that has already been begun clearly cannot in any circumstances qualify for grant, and there is no point whatever in holding up its completion. On other works of improvement owners will have to decide whether to make a start now or to make plans for starting in the autumn when the grants will be available. We shall be announcing later when and how the proposals should be submitted for consideration. There are,
266
however, considerable arrears of repairs and maintenance to be done, and such work will not qualify for grant except in those cases where it is directly associated with an improvement. Owners may well feel that in view of the extra effort that will be required from the building industry once the scheme starts, they would be well advised to spend the intervening months in catching up on repairs and maintenance.
The scheme of grants does not extend to items that are, or may be, assisted under existing legislation, such as the erection or improvement of houses and cottages, farm drainage and water supply schemes and construction of silos and works forming part of a comprehensive scheme under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. There is, therefore, still much work to be done in the countryside, though it will not be affected by this new scheme of grants. For the rest, landlords must, I suggest, look to the next six or seven months as a period of planning to ensure that the fullest possible advantage in the way of better buildings and better farms will be taken of the new grants in the ten-year period for which they will be available. We are prepared to play our part, not only by providing one-third of the cost but by giving positive and practical help it drawing up well-conceived proposals for the improvement and modernisation of our farms and farm buildings.
I think I have said enough to give noble Lords a good deal of matter to discuss this afternoon, and I will not detain the House further by enlarging upon the significance of our proposals as a whole. As your Lordships know, they have been well received. The National Farmers' Union have welcomed them, in the words of Sir James Turner's letter to my right honourable friend,
"as a sound and satisfactory basis for future confidence and necessary forward planning in the industry."
The representatives of landowners also have expressed their satisfaction with the proposals, and in the country generally they have been considered to strike a fair balance between the need, on the one hand, to give confidence to the farmer and to the landowner in planning for the future, and, on the other, to leave scope for the flexibility and economy which

267
are essential if the industry is to respond to changing conditions and if the arrangement as a whole is to be fair to the taxpayer.
My right honourable friend has every hope, therefore, that our proposals will not only promote that confidence which is the necessary basis for investment and development but, because they are flexible and fair, also stand the test of time. I am sure they are the greatest event in agricultural history since the passing of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Indeed, they represent a great act of faith by the Government in both the future and the capacity of the industry in which I am proud to be associated with my right honourable friend.
3.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I entirely agree with the concluding sentence of the Parliamentary Secretary, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. This is a very important day in the history of the agricultural industry. It is undoubtedly the most notable step that has been taken since the passing of the Act of 1947. I would put it a little higher from the point of view of supporters of the Conservative Party, and say that this is probably the largest contribution ever made by the Conservative Party, through their Government, to providing a long-term policy. Any examination of the history of the industry during the last fifty years or more would, I think, demonstrate that. Not that I would for one moment remove much of the credit which, in that period and in the 'nineties, is due to those Governments—mainly Conservative, and possibly with some help from the Liberal Government at one time—who helped the industry with the Agricultural Derating Act, an Act which, in its effect, was long-term, although it seems now to be under cross-fire from various sections of the community.
But to understand how exceedingly keen the farming community has been on getting a long-term policy makes it necessary for us always to keep in mind the history of the industry, and the years of steady effort to recover from the years of depression which followed after the middle of the 19th century and which is so often described by the historian as "the golden age of farming." Certainly
268
the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney has every right to be pleased that he has been put by the Government—which he has rarely criticised, though he has often pushed for something more to be done—into a position of being able to move to-day this Motion approving a long-term policy.
If we consider a little of the history of the farming industry, we see how farming began to go down and down from the end of the 'seventies, and how the farmers struggled, until, when war came in 1914 and they were absolutely essential, they were organised, helped and subsidised, and when anything else that could be done to try to meet the fierce danger, as well as the economic necessities of fighting that important war, was done. Then in 1920 came the first blow to the hopes of the farmers at that time of being able to keep hold of a long-term policy. The repeal of the Corn Production Act in 1920 was the forerunner of the rising of another great period of depression in the farming industry. It had all the flavour about it that has aroused the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, against the economists. The economists, of course, always want something in the nature of a Geddes Axe applied to anything of which they do not particularly approve. The 1920 policy of the repeal of the Corn Production Act was carried out in the atmosphere of the Geddes Axe operation. But how the industry suffered! And how the workers in the industry suffered!
When the noble Lord quotes to me across the Floor of the House to-day the words uttered by the President of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, I am not surprised that, on occasion, they go quite far in their utterances of suspicion of what may be behind an agricultural policy emanating from Tory sources, because the farm workers have had experience of that in the past. I well remember how, in 1924, when the first Labour Government came into office with fewer than 200 Members in the House, the first thing that it was essential to do, because we could get support from other Parties, was to try to remedy the dire situation of the agricultural worker, who, through the deflation and devaluation policy, had been utterly starved both of food and regular and steady employment. That was the reason for

269
the passing in 1924 of the Minimum Wages Act.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, is one of those who feels that a good remuneration is as much due to the organised agricultural workers in the country as to any other section of industrial workers. They are not less skilled, and their contribution is not less valuable. The need, for the sake of the general economy of the country, to keep them on the land, at least up to a certain proportion of the population, means that we ought to face with a reasonable amount of equanimity the problem of paying them a living wage and, moreover, a wage which does not put them in a worse position, value for value, than other industrial workers in the country.
It is a pleasure to see that from 1924, when the minimum wage was first fixed at 27s. per week, we have now arrived at the time when the minimum wage is £7 1s. per week, which probably, in the view of many people, is not nearly as high as it ought to be though it is becoming increasingly difficult for farmers to pay it, unless they are very large farmers with highly organised machinery attached to their farming. That is something which has to be looked into in having regard to the past. Right through the period from 1920 to 1939 the farmer himself went through a terrible and disastrous time under the very kind of policy which this Government brought back after their election in 1951: "Set the people free in all these matters: let them have a 'free-for-all'!" It has not gone quite so far as that in farming, but very nearly.
The price of that policy from 1920 to 1939 was dire and disastrous for the agricultural industry; and not only for the worker, of whom I have been speaking especially, but also for the farmers, who over and over again had bought farms at rising prices from 1914 to 1918 and 1919 and were forced to sell in bankruptcy because they had no protection whatsoever. Farms were bought up by wealthy industrialists and others at as low a price as £10, £15 or £20 an acre, land that could not be bought at anything less than £80, £100 or £120 an acre to-day. That is the story of the farmer, not the worker on the land, as a result of the "free-for-all" from 1920 to 1939. I do not think my facts can be denied.
270
Taking the position which has existed since 1939, I would say that certainly there has been a better basis for organisation than the one which existed when we had to deal with the situation of 1914. The farmers were better organised and the workers were better organised, and the successful contribution made by the farming industry is something the country ought not to be allowed to forget in an historical appraisement of the result of the war of 1939–45. It was an enormous contribution. Then it was determined by a Labour Government that it was essential to have a continuity of controls, especially in view of oar national economic position and the need to control generally, so that we might organise our production for export to meet our needs. We wanted continuity it agriculture so that we could obtain the largest possible contribution to home production, in order to keep as low as might be the imports for which we had to pay dollars. That was the basis of cur Labour agriculture policy. That was what led to the 1947 Act.
The basis of that Act worked, I must say, exceedingly well, although there were some kicks and grumbles sometimes by individual people of standing, who felt that they were brought under some hardship by the control of particular farms because of their lack of the efficiency required by that long-term policy. But the stability of the industry from 1946 until 1950–51 was quite extraordinary. There was restraint and rigid control of prices, and the farmer knew what he was going to get. Of all those I have talked to in the farming community, I have found few who really wanted to experience what is going on now in regard to free markets—very few indeed. Farmers then knew what they had to produce, they knew what they were going to get, and, in the organised policy controlling imports from abroad, they had some idea of what would be the best quantitative production of particular agricultural commodities. All that was exceedingly important.
What has happened since? Ever since 1950–51 the farmers have been pressing and pressing the Conservative Government for a long-term policy. The Government were elected in 1951; they are producing that policy in a White Paper at the end of 1956. As to the statement on Government policy which was made the I other day by, I think, the Prime Minister

271
in a supplementary answer to a Question, I suppose that if they had been working only, as he said then, by trial and error for that period, we must give them at least some thanks for what their labours of trial and error have brought forth. However, they give us now, in this White Paper—and we should like to acknowledge it—the basis of a long-term policy, and in so far as that continues the general basis of the required long-term policy set out in the 1947 Act, we welcome it and hope very much that it will succeed. But, when we are talking about this principle of guarantees, remember how much the farmer, who is shot at by the economists or odd-minded politicians here and there (there are even one or two in my own Party) as being "featherbedded" and the like, and the farming industry have delivered the goods, and how much they have suffered, on the other hand, from the "free-for-all" policy of the present Government since 1951.
I was looking up the figures the other day. I find that the net income available to the industry for 1949–50, after paying expenses but without allowing for the value of the labour of the farmer where he himself works on the farm, was £306 million. I have looked at the latest estimate for 1956–57 and the result of what ought obviously to have been better returns to the farmers for the period between 1949–50 and 1956–57. The British farmer has produced extra food for the country of no less than 9 per cent. in volume during that period, on what was regarded as already a high figure in 1949–51. Yet what is the real result to the farmer as a farmer? The real result, as the estimate for this year shows, is a net return of £299½ million. That is £6½ million less than in 194–950.
I noticed recently that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in another place in a reply that the value of money since 1949–50 has decreased by one-sixth. In other words, the farmer is getting a net return in spending power (which includes what would be the remuneration for his personal labour upon the farm as well) amounting in total to about £251 million, instead of the £306 million of spending power which he had in 1949–50. I ask any Member of your Lordships' House to take those facts and study them carefully. Such is the result of a "free-for-all." I notice one or two smiles at that, but
272
noble Lords who smile at it forget the other side of the picture, and that is that the farmer, whilst producing the food, has been forced into increased expenditure all the time upon his capital purchases of machinery and other things of that kind. All his building costs are up, his freights are up, everything is up; and that has been because of the same "free-for-all" policy, helping to relieve the direct taxpayer.
Subsidies on food have been taken off from the consumer; the cost to the consumer has been increased; wages have gone up in all other industries to a far greater extent than in the farm workers' share of industry; yet the farmer has had to meet increased costs, including wages on that scale, while he gets lower prices for his commodities. I say that the farmer has proved, from 1949–50 right through to to-day, his growing efficiency. He has improved quality—although I am quite sure that there is room for still further improvement in quality; he has improved volume, but he has not improved prices, except in temporary bursts in places. The beef producer who was organised had a good deal in regard to his prices for the first few months after freedom had been given to the market two or three years ago; but directly the Government brought in their new basis of assessing deficiency payments—what the farmer calls the "rock 'n' roll", the rolling average—down went the price. I have seen the price descend in my local market from as much as 190s. per cwt. to something like 89s. per cwt., on different days in different periods. That is not much stability for the farmer. He is required to have stability in paying extra wages and all the extra costs created by the Government, but there is no real stability in the market price he is to receive. Even with the long-term guarantee that is proposed now, there is no real comparison with the kind of guarantee of stability, price and occupation that the farmer had in a proper administration of the 1947 Act. That is my considered opinion after a most careful study of the matter.
I should like to say a great deal more but I want to put these things on record for your Lordships to study. They are useful points to study, even if you want to criticise me on some future occasion

273
as severely as did the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, when he reminded me, in his usual kindly way, about the debate last April. The general quotation he made from the Farmer's Weekly interested me a great deal. It is typical of the way in which the Farmer's Weekly always responds to the appeal, based on the old typewriting exercise that we used to do:
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party."
They are very good at that. But they do let out the idea, now and again, that there are other aspects. I have here a quotation which shows where the trouble has been and what has worried the Farmer's Weekly. Strangely enough, it is from the issue of the same date as the article from which the noble Lord quoted, November 30:
"The annual and special Price Reviews worked quite well in times of scarcity and rationing. Control ceased to work in a 'free' market and has failed for four or five years to promote effectively the objects of the 1947 Act."
Would the noble Lord agree with that? It is from the same source—the Farmer's Weekly. They say that
"the annual Price Review has degenerated into a haggle of uncertain outcome between the Government and farmers, generating only instability and suspicion"
That is the other aspect of the views of the Farmer's Weekly.
I have been interested in what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the capital works programme. We are all glad that he is going to give us the draft scheme in a legislative form as soon as possible. We hope it will come soon so that that section of the Government White Paper will come into operation before September 1. It is leaving it a little late for some of the building work, such as that which is not going to be done by farm labour, and the earlier we can have it the better; then we shall be able to get on with the job on the farms.
But there are one or two questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply. There is, for example, a question which was asked on December 28 or December 21—I am not quite sure which. At any rate, the Farmer's Weekly is quoting cases where, unless the Government take great care in their examination of the first guarantee, they will probably exceed the 4 per cent. which is
274
supposed not to be exceeded in the new minimum basis of guarantee. I speak from memory, but the case quoted in the Farmer's Weekly was that of wheat, which, if it were assessed at the minimum price under the guidance of 1956, would be 28s. 3d. per cwt., whereas if a new assessment were made for that year it could not, under the 4 per cent. rule, be less than 28s. 7d., which, roughly speaking, is a difference of 6s. 8d. a ton. Working that out on the basis of a farm producing 100 tons of corn—a medium-sized owner-occupied farm—that would amount to quite a considerable sum and would make a difference in profit. Can we be assured that questions of that kind will be dealt with?
Can we also be assured that in dealing with these guarantees of price everything which really appertains to the costs of the farmer will be taken into account? I am rather nervous about the wording of the White Paper on that point. It refers to "the commodities in question", or some words to that effect, drawing attention to the commodities. Let us, for example, take the case of fuel for machinery and its cost to the farmer. How is that going to be assessed? Is that going to come into the guarantee? I should like a specific answer to that question, if I can have one. The extent to which that will go on is, of course, problematical at this time, but if it were to last, say, from last December until next December (for the period of twelve months), it is estimated that the cost would be no less than £11 million. Then it becomes a considerable factor in the overall examination of the basis of guarantee. It is quite important from that point of view.
I should like to say a word with regard to the £29 million which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney. All I say in regard to that is that he must not think it is only the President of the National Union of Agricultural Workers who takes that view of the guarantee. Sometimes I listen to "Farmers' Fare" on the radio, and I hear people talking mainly about things which do riot interest me at all as a farmer, and in such a haphazard way that they are not very helpful. But sometimes I listen to a pertinent and direct comment by a gentleman called Mr. J. L. Charrington. I dare say there are noble Lords who know something about him and his general knowledge of agriculture. I am

275
glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and I read the same things. Mr. J. L. Charrington, in the Farmer's Weekly of December 14, says:
"Two-and-a-half per cent. does not look much on paper, but when applied to £1,150"—
that is the estimated overall income of the farms—
"it works out at about £29 million in the first year and could be £120 million in a five-year period"—
depending of course upon the variations in the percentages that might operate. But that is a very considerable figure, and not a figure that one would welcome with quite the enthusiasm with which the noble Lord would like us to welcome it.
However, I say again, on behalf of my Party—and I am sure those who speak after me will agree—that we welcome the fact that the Conservative Party have been converted to the point of announcing a long-term policy for agriculture; this is the first time that it has happened under a Government of that Party, and it is a great thing. We congratulate them upon it. We wish that, instead of having this basis of guarantees, it were being done on a minimum grant which is presumed every year to decrease until the costs are examined. Nevertheless, we take the scheme as it is and will examine it very carefully as we go on; and "By their deeds after that ye shall know them."
One thing cheered me up, as I am sure it cheered up the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who is to follow me: if we can get a perfect guarantee for the future, we may get over some of the difficulties which face us in two directions. The first is that we cannot get the full development of co-operation amongst farmers in their co-operative organisations, trading and developmental, unless we can get a better capital contribution to those societies; and the farmers must have capital from which to contribute it If the losses that have been sustained by so many farmers over the last three years can be made up, there will be some hope.
The second thing is that it will help in the application of the undoubted good intention of this capital grant system for the improvement of buildings if some capital can be restored to those who,
276
after the last three years, just have not the capital "in the kitty" to put down on major schemes. I appreciate that, as a general rule, the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation will be able to supply most of what the farmers propose to put down, but it is not at all an easy thing to plan finance at 6 per cent.; and, so far as I can see, the Corporation cannot do things in any other way, for they raise money on the market from period to period, as required for the loans they need to make. Therefore, when they re-lend it to the individual farmer they have to apply to him the rate of interest operating when they borrow. One finds farmers paying anything from 3½ to 5 per cent., and even up to 6 per cent., on loans, because that is made necessary by the basis of the operations of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. I have taken some little time on this matter. I apologise to your Lordships if I have been a little long, but I wanted to put our full case and not to withhold our appreciation of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have joined us, in principle, upon a long-term policy.
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I feel bound to apologise to the House, partly because I am afflicted with temporary indisposition, and partly because I have to catch a train home within the next half hour. But I should not care to remain altogether silent on such an occasion as this, because I feel, as the noble Viscount who has just spoken has indicated, that this is a very important occasion in the whole economic history of our greatest and most vital industry.
I had the experience, sitting on the other side of the House in 1947, ten years ago, of offering a warm welcome to the 1947 Bill initiated in another place by my good friend, Mr. Tom Williams, whom we all honour. I then described it as prospectively a charter of confidence and enterprise for our great agricultural industry. From that standpoint I have never gone back. I criticised the Bill to some extent at that time because it left out any material reference to the more intensive side of our husbandry, namely: the horticultural industry; and having myself, in my old age, plunged into somewhat intensive horticultural activities, I am more than ever of opinion that horticulture, particularly in areas like

277
my own, where the land is good and opportunity is great, requires from Her Majesty's Government more sympathetic attention than it has had in the past. I say this in passing because only yesterday there was issued the most illuminating Report of the Committee, presided over by my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford, relating to horticultural marketing. I was going to suggest that that Report is so important that this House, or at any rate those Members who have had an opportunity of reading it, should not discuss it to-day but should rather leave it to a special occasion, when we can discuss it at our leisure and in greater detail.
I should like very warmly to congratulate my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney on the clear and convincing speech with which he submitted his Motion and opened this debate. I would urge upon the noble Earl who succeeded him, as a representative of Her Majesty's Government, that those detailed proposals, about which we were all rather anxious to know more, should be issued, so far as it is possible to be specific, not only to the leading agricultural journals but to the National Farmers' Union and to the Country Landowners' Association. The landowner is, of course, bound to come into the picture on these capital grants and the balance that will have to be made up to implement them. I feel it is most important that the actual and specific improvements which are contemplated should be set out in black and white, and should be made known to the parties most interested, otherwise, I feel sure that the Ministry of Agriculture will be overwhelmed with applications and queries in regard to information. If such steps are taken immediately, the Department will, I believe, be saved a good deal of trouble and embarrassment.
After listening to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, on his recovery to health and strength after the very serious operation through which he passed only a few months ago. It is perfectly obvious from his speech to-day that he has been restored to a condition of robustness and vigour which we must all be gratified to find in so ardent a champion of our great agricultural industry.
278
I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough anticipated that I might have something to say on this subject, but my chief adverse comment concerning the White Paper is that it contains no reference to co-operation. Of course, judging by the history of other nations which have made good in the matter of their husbandry, co-operation has been the economic salvation of the small husbandman in every civilised country of the world. In that respect we in this country have not proceeded to anything like the extent to which we might have done. I still believe that if the small farmer is to prosper in the future, whatever may be done in regard to capital equipment at the Government expense, he himself has to work out his own economic salvation, relying on agricultural co-operation to a far greater extent than he has done in the past.
One particular feature of the White Paper has not been dealt with at any length, though the noble Earl mentioned it rather casually. It seems to adumbrate a great rural revolution in this country comparable with that which occurred in the 18th century, when the Enclosure Acts were passed with a view to the enclosure of commons and the initiation and development of what is now known as "capitalist farming." For my part, I have always regretted, from a social point of view, the fact that these Enclosure Acts were passed. On the other hand, no-one can deny that the result of their passing was enormously to increase the agricultural wealth of this country and, incidentally, to enable out farm animals to be provided with food during the winter months, and our rotation and other systems of husbandry to be carried out in a way which, by reason of the piecemeal fashion in which husbandry was conducted in those days, was previously quite impracticable.
As regards this system of merger or amalgamation, for many reasons, I regret that it is contemplated. On the other hand, I believe that it is inevitable. The whole trend of economy in every industry, including agriculture, today is with a view to maximum and optimum prosperity; and, the development of industrial wealth, amalgamation, and the setting up of larger units of industry

279
have become, to my mind, absolutely inevitable. One reason why I regret this is that the system of smallholdings in this country did, to large extent, enable successful agricultural workers to develop their holdings and business methods, and to gain experience in connection with their holdings which has made them—as I have good reason to know—excellent migrants in various parts of our overseas Commonwealth. For the reason I have just explained, I regret that the system of merger is contemplated, though I am sure that it is necessary from an economic point of view. I hope that it will be courageously and successfully put in hand at no distant date.
To my mind, it is pathetic to see these small units of husbandry in this country struggling along, to see the unfortunate small occupier, notably in Wales, often far worse off than his agricultural worker—for an agricultural worker has a guaranteed minimum of remuneration, and as long as he is reasonably well housed and cared for, he is a member of the body politic who is not very often to be pitied. But his employer is in a very different category. Often these smallholders, operating on a bit of agricultural land of one sort or another, making a very poor living, if a living at all, are in a condition that indeed calls for sympathy. This is a pitiable factor in our agricultural community.
I welcome this scheme, mainly, if not exclusively, on the ground of these improvement grants. As I ventured to say in this House a few weeks ago, we have to recognise two facts. The first is that the fixed equipment of many of our farms is wholly unsuited to a large number of agricultural processes to-day. Secondly, we have to remember that we passed through some forty or fifty years of agricultural depression which ruined not only a large number of efficient farmers but also a large number of unfortunate country squires. The result is that the present generation of agricultural landowners, besides receiving rents which, very often, are wholly inadequate to maintain what buildings and fixed equipment they have, are wholly incapable of carrying out themselves any new improvement schemes such as the Government contemplate carrying out, at least to the extent of one-third, at the public expense. In my view,
280
the provision, at least in part, by the Government, of this capital equipment, is the most enlightened and most far-sighted step for the definite and further improvement of our agricultural industry that a Government of this country have taken for the last thirty or forty years.
I must not be tempted to say much more, but I should like to say, in passing, that I noticed that the noble Earl who is now sitting below me, when addressing the annual meeting of a young farmers' club in the West Country a few days ago, made the remarkable statement that while Government help is one thing, efficiency on the part of the farmer is infinitely more important. With that, I entirely agree. If only we can get our farmers, the rising generation of farmers, properly trained in science, as well as in practice, than, with the help of this capital equipment provided by the Government, presently and prospectively, I cannot help thinking that, at any rate amongst the more enterprising members of the farming community, our British agriculture has a really bright future, and will be able to contribute materially to the national wealth and to better confidence on the part of every section of the British public. I repeat that, for my part, I welcome this long-term policy. I never have been a lover of Government subsidies and guarantees. I only hope that in days to come this new system of capital equipment will render such help quite unnecessary, efficient farmers having, with the help of co-operation and by other means, worked out their own economic salvation.
4.20 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, in rising for the first time to address your Lordships, I hope that I may be accorded the indulgence which I believe is customary on these occasions. I am indeed glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has put down this Motion for debate to-day, because I feel that this White Paper contains matter of the utmost significance, and perhaps its importance has not been given the full ventilation it deserves. The reasons are not far to seek. The statement made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn in this House was made on November 27, at the height of the Middle East crisis. After that there was the Christmas Recess and since there have been the changes

281
in the Government. All these matters have tended to overshadow this important new agricultural policy. In passing, I hope that I may be in order in saying that I welcome very much the fact that the Minister of Agriculture remains in his office and that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, the Parliamentary Secretary, remains in office, too.
The proposals contained in the White Paper have received wide support, and nowhere more than in the agricultural industry itself. Indeed, within a day or two of the publication of the White Paper, the agricultural journals spoke strongly in favour of it. The writer of the leading article in the Farmer's Weekly of November 30 must, I think, never have had so much attention paid to him. I propose, if I may, to quote the first lines of his article, which I think up to now are the only lines in the article which have not been quoted. The writer states:
"When the Minister of Agriculture made his announcement on Tuesday of this week, it transformed the present situation and the future prospects of the industry."
That is strong language from a paper which frequently is sharply critical of Government agricultural policy.
For a good many years now agricultural policy has been to a large extent taken out of the cockpit of politics, by agreement between the Parties, but I think we should do less than justice to the Minister and his advisers and to the leaders of the farming industry if we assumed that this had been attained easily. I think it is no mean feat to have kept agriculture, our greatest industry, above the strife for so long—ever since the passing of the 1947 Agriculture Act. But the Act of 1947 is now ten years old, and I think that the full significance of the proposals in this White Paper cannot be fully appreciated unless we remind ourselves of the developments which have taken place during the last ten years.
These developments fall into three periods. The first began when the Act was passed, largely as an agreed measure. The conditions of the industry, of this country and of the world at large were far different from what they are to-day. Then the demand for agricultural produce was far in excess of the supply, and it was quantity, not quality, that was required; even cost was not a great consideration. In those days, ten years ago, the Government were the sole buyers of
282
agricultural produce, not only home produce but nearly all imported produce as well. The system adopted to implement the first part of the Act and the guarantees contained in it was a system, as your. Lordships know, of fixed prices and individual targets for the review commodities linked generally to the overall target of the 1947 expansion programme. I consider that the Annual Price Review system, which is incorporated in Section 2 of the Act, worked very well in those conditions, and I think that there is no contradiction at all, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, seemed to imply, between the fact that it worked well in that period and less well in the next period.
The second period of implementation of the Act began some six years later, when the Government of the day were able to bring to an end the buying in bulk of all agricultural produce and to put an end to rationing and control and the fixed prices, which were a necessary part of the system and conditions which up till then obtained. The system during this second period, which has been with us up to the issue of this new White Paper, was a system of standard prices and deficiency payments for both cereals and livestock, with greatly added responsibility to the appropriate boards in connection with milk, wool and potatoes. The fixing of these standard prices and deficiency payments was still, under Section 2 of the Agriculture Act, done by the Annual Price Review. In these later years this Price Review procedure had begun to creak rather alarmingly. Although I do not go so far as to say that: an atmosphere of suspicion and lack of confidence had actually arrived, I think that such an atmosphere was just round the corner. I agree with this famous article in the Farmer's Weekly that in those conditions the system was degenerating into a "haggle." I think that the Minister and his advisers, the farmers and their leaders, and indeed the general public, could only contemplate such a procedure of "haggle" with dismay, for it was the outcome of this annual contest which was going to fix the price the farmers would have to receive and that the public would have to pay during the ensuing year.
So let roe say at once that I think that almost the most important part of this new policy is that, although it has

283
not been possible to eliminate the Price Review procedure altogether, this annual price contest will have a much more limited scope in future. If I may say so, it will be conducted in future under "Queensberry Rules." I do not think it is fair to go so far as to say that gloves will be worn on either side, but I think it is fair and true to say that in future this contest will be confined within a definite ring, and it is that limitation which I think is such a valuable development in this White Paper.
The basis of this part of the White Paper is that the fall in guarantees will be limited. I will not weary your Lordships with all the percentages contained in the paragraphs in the White Paper dealing with this matter, but the essential points are that the guaranteed price for each individual commodity cannot fall by more than 4 per cent. below the year before; and in the case of livestock and livestock products, for which there are good reasons why more generous treatment should be granted, they cannot fall more than 9 per cent. over a period of three years; and the annual total value of guarantees, which will include production grants, will not be permitted to fall by more than 2½ per cent. of the total of the previous year, after adding (this is important, though people sometimes forget it) the cost increases and deducting the cost decreases which have occurred during the period since the previous annual review. These percentage limitations are to remain in force for five years, which I think is important, and we are assured, I believe, that even though the new legislation will not have been passed by next month, the next month's Price Review will work within these percentages.
I think it is well known that the leaders of the industry went into these discussions with the Government out of which this White Paper has arisen with the great hope of obtaining a long-term policy, just as the Departments went into the discussion with the great hope that the Annual Price Review procedure could be, if not eliminated, at least greatly reformed and modified. I venture to suggest that these discussions have been most fruitful, because in one sroke we have in this White Paper the long-term policy that is required and was asked for, and at the
284
same time we have this modification of the annual haggle over the Price Review, which is so valuable. In speaking for a moment of the long-term policy, I find myself in complete agreement with paragraphs 30 and 31 of the White Paper, in which the Government use what are, to me, conclusive arguments why no farmer—and no member of any other industry for that matter—can hope to be given precise instructions as to what he is to produce and what price he is to get for it.
This guarantee procedure which has now been ushered in in this new and third period since the Act does, I think, bring real stability to the industry on which confidence can be based. But stability by itself is surely not enough. For it is absolutely essential that we must continue to improve and develop the farms and the farming industry generally, in order that we may reduce our costs of production. Even before publication of this White Paper, immense strides had already been made in modernising the farms of this country as a result of action by their owners, whether they be owner-occupiers or owners who let them to farm tenants. But, so far, there has been no direct Government assistance for work of this sort, except in the case of the hill farms, under the Hill Farming Act, and the farms that come under what are called livestock rearing areas. Now it is proposed, for the first time, that grants of 33⅓ per cent. shall be available on permanent fixed equipment and for the making of long-term improvements to farms of all sorts and types. This is a new and most valuable departure. The proposals are set out in paragraphs 22 to 29 of the White Paper. I do not intend to go into them to-day, although there are one or two specific points to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships, and particularly I would draw attention to paragraph 28.
I was a little surprised to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, saying at first that he was rather sorry about this paragraph, which deals with amalgamations. However, before the noble Viscount finished, I realised that he was not really so sorry as he sounded at first, because he appreciated that in this respect something was necessary. I entirely agree with him that something is necessary. This is a bold departure and a bold step. It is that these grants shall be made available

285
for amalgamating uneconomic units—not necessarily small units, but uneconomic units—and for certain other costs involved in the amalgamation process: those are the words used, although I am not sure what they mean. However, grants are to be made available for equipping and amalgamating uneconomic units.
The amalgamation of uneconomic farm units has never proved easy in this country or anywhere else. We in this country are not bedevilled to the extent that many countries on the Continent are by minute holdings, because, fortunately, we have not the same kind of succession laws and customs as are often in force on the Continent, where, on the death of an occupier, a farm is fragmented into tiny strips, which completely hinders any kind of economic or modern farming. We are not as bad as that; but in the West Country, where I live, there are a large number of small units, and units which are uneconomic. I hasten to say that those two words must not be taken together: a small unit is not necessarily an uneconomic unit, although it may be that sometimes it is uneconomic. I notice in the proposals that there is to be no compulsion, and I am glad of that. However, I hope the Government will keep in mind that at a later date pressure may have to be brought to bear to try to get this part of the policy working, if it has not started to work under its own volition. I hope that it will not be necessary and that it can be achieved by voluntary action.
I am sure that many noble Lords will wish to speak about these improvement grants, but there are one or two points that I should like to make, even after the important statement made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, earlier this afternoon. The matter of delay has already been referred to, but it is of first importance. I anticipate that there will be a great deal of detailed discussion, here and elsewhere, and it is unlikely that these grants will be made available for some time—indeed, I think the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that they would not be made available until September, or possibly later. The effect of this delay, however inevitable, is bound to be unfortunate. It is bound to lead to a pile-up; for I assume that people will not start doing this kind of work when they know that if they wait a little longer they will be paid one-third of the
286
cost. When tins "D-day" arrives, the resources of the building industry—and in this connection it means mostly the small jobbing country builder who is already deeply committed—will be inevitably strained. I hope that this bottleneck will not lead to a steep rise in builders' prices.
I am sure that we must try to keep this matter simple in its administration. If I may say so, we are dealing here with pigsties and not with secondary modern schools. I hope that we may have some common-sense procedure whereby schemes can be put forward now, even before the legislation is before Parliament, for examination by the officials who will be charged with the administration of this Part of the Act. It will be quite disastrous if the officials are not going to be permitted even to look at the schemes before the last "i" is dotted and the last "t" crossed in the administrative instructions which will have to follow the legislation. The noble Earl said that he will do everything he can in this matter, and we accept that.
There is one other point, not wholly unallied to this, to which I should like to bring passing attention, and that is in relation to the small country contractor. A great deal of this work is suitable to be done by the farmer and his own men or, if the farm is a let farm, by the owner and the estate staff. A great deal of this work can be more economically done without a contractor at all. This raises a difficult point, and one which needs attention, because if we adopt the system of "Do it yourself"—which I am sure in this connection is going to be valuable—we are bound to run up against all sorts of practical difficulties. If you take the line of least resistance and put your work out to a contractor, the matter is simple for everybody: you get your estimate; you submit it to the department; the department approves it; you give the job to the contractor; you pay the Bill; you have the receipt, and you send that to the department. The department compares it with the estimate, and finds that it agrees, and pays the grant. The whole matter is too simple.
It does not need much imagination, however, to see what happens if you have tried to do the work yourself. I have had experience of this under the Hill Farming Act in Scotland. You have to start

287
analysing time sheets—perhaps you do not normally keep time sheets at all. You have to start analysing invoices—and farmers are inveterate buyers for cash and very likely have not got detailed invoices. You have to convince the department that these sheets of asbestos for which you are seeking a grant were actually used on the pigsty, and have not gone into stock or been used on another job. It is a difficult point, but I think it is essential that farmers will have to do this, because there will be a build-up which will strain the contractors. By administrative action we have somehow to get over this and make it possible for self-help.
There is one other point which is difficult, and that is that the farmer's own work is, of course, never eligible for grant. That is an old matter, and it has been raised often before. I make no apology for raising it again now in your Lordships' House because it seems, at first sight, to be unjust; and in my view, it is unjust. But I believe that the Treasury are adamant on this, and always will be—perhaps I should not say "always will be", but at any rate always have been, adamant on this. It is a point that, especially in connection with these grants, wants looking into again now, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to do so. The essence of this whole problem of grants, therefore, especially in the initial periods, when there is this build-up, is that they should be treated with understanding and wisdom, and that the local officials should be trusted and given wide scope to use discretion; otherwise we shall force a lot of work out into the hands of contractors where it need not go, and where it will cost the farmer and agriculture as a whole more.
These points are only details, but I am sure your Lordships will not lose sight of the fact that these long-term assurances have been accepted by the farming industry, and are accepted as giving to the industry a solid basis on which to build an improved and more efficient agriculture, so that prices may be reduced. That, to me, is the remarkable thing. At a time when prices are rising in so many other directions, this whole plan is concerned largely with the amounts by which guarantees can be reduced, in order that the price of the
288
food can be reduced for the people who have to buy it. This is, I venture to suggest, really remarkable, and should surely be a source of the greatest pride to all those who are connected with farming, whether they are farmers, farm workers or landowners. That such a programme for the lowering of costs should not only be accepted but welcomed with enthusiasm, is a fact of which we ought to be proud. In those circumstances, we can surely support these proposals with complete confidence.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that not long ago the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, was Chairman of the Agricultural Executive Committee of the County of Somerset, a county which I have always admired from a distance, and which I have always loved on the few occasions when I have been privileged to visit it. Somerset is well known for its excellent grass and for the high quality of the livestock.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And its men.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, can speak with great authority and experience on this subject. I am sure that all your Lordships have been delighted to listen to his maiden speech, on which I have the honour to congratulate him. Since the noble Earl has, I believe, been a Member of this House for twenty years, I hope that he is now going to make up for lost time. The high quality of his speech has made us equally regretful that we have never heard him before and hopeful that we may often have the pleasure of hearing him again.
If the price-fixing proposals in this White Paper are carried out, the Government will have done as much as they can be expected to do at the present time for the price structure of our farming community. When Sir Robert Peel established the gold standard in this country 140 years ago, a Member of the House of Commons who sat for the County of Essex proposed that wheat and not gold should form the basis of British currency. He argued that wheat was a much more universally acceptable commodity than gold; and indeed I think that is true of nearly every kind of agricultural product.

289
Under our present managed currency, these annual price negotiations between the Government and the National Farmers' Union have an important bearing on our cost-of-living figure, and on the whole problem of inflation. How delighted all farmers would be if our costs of production could be stabilised perhaps for a period of five years! If that could be done, we could confidently expect to achieve a substantial reduction in the price of food.
I am not going to spend time disputing with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, about the relative merits of a controlled and semi-controlled economy. Indeed, I should have been delighted to agree with everything the noble Viscount said, but for the fact that our farming costs continued to rise just the same at the time when we had all these controls. I am afraid that I cannot see any practical likelihood that the progress of inflation will ever be finally arrested, although we may hope that it will be slowed down a little.
I believe that the Government and the National Farmers' Union have done equally well in agreeing on this flexible arrangement which is explained in the White Paper, and which will, I think, protect equally the public and the farmer, having regard to the long period which must often elapse, particularly in the livestock rearing industry, between the time when the farmer lays out his money and the time when he hopes to get it back. But the White Paper recognises that price fixing is not enough, and that if we want greater efficiency and higher food production without excessive prices we must put more capital into the modernisation of our farming. Until the present century, British farming was plentifully and cheaply supplied with capital by the owners of land. British farming certainly was, and perhaps still is, more highly capitalised and more efficient than that in any other country in the world, but in the last two generations punitive taxation has practically confiscated the entire source of capital from which British farming used to be financed.
Now, in paragraph 21 of this White Paper, the Government, like a good-natured highwayman who has robbed his victim of everything he possesses but does not want to leave him entirely destitute,
290
are proposing to give us back a little of what they have taken away. I certainly hope that this 33⅓ per cent. grant will be spent in the best possible way, but I rather doubt whether the contemplated capital expenditure of £320 million which is mentioned in the White Paper will, in fact, be spent to the best advantage unless there is some revision—it need not, perhaps, be a very great revision—in our attitude towards both the question of arbitrarily controlled rents and also, perhaps, the question of security of tenure. Both those questions are difficult and we ought not to jump to any hasty conclusions about them.
There is a recent publication by the Scottish Department of Agriculture, Volume VI of Scottish Agricultural Economics, which I had meant to bring here to-day. Unfortunately—perhaps your Lordships may think "fortunately"—I have inadvertently left it at home, but I think I can remember the passage which I intended to read to your Lordships. The Department have lately been carrying out a survey of all the buildings and capital equipment on every farm in Scotland, and they have estimated that the total value of all the fixed capital equipment, of every kind, belonging to the owner is about £188 million. They point out that the total figure of gross agricultural rents in Scotland is £5,400 million, which is less than 3 per cent. (about 2·9 per cent.) on the existing capital which is there already.
Of course, that figure of 2·9 per cent. does not represent income received by the owner; it represents only the receipts cut of which he has to pay for maintenance, replacement and the cost of management. I wonder what any of us would think of a modern industrial business which could devote an annual sum equal to only 2·9 per cent. or the whole of its fixed capital assets to maintenance, management and replacement. We should not consider it a very progressive business, and it is not surprising, in view of these figures, that so little capital is now being spent on our agricultural holdings, either in Scotland or in England. Fortunately, a great many of the cattle courts, barns and other buildings which were put up a hundred years ago were so well built that they are still serviceable, and are likely to remain so for a long time; but we do need a great

291
many more buildings and electric power, grain dryers, and other modern improvements of every kind, to enable the farmers and workers to earn better wages and to produce more food, without charging higher prices to the public.
The question of rents is not a simple one. I think it is certainly not a general issue between landowners and farm tenants—indeed, there are a great many landowners who, for various reasons, do not want to raise rents. After the catastrophic depression, due to world causes, which struck British agriculture in the 1870s, and which lasted almost without interruption for sixty years, until the Second World War, there was always a tradition among owners of land that when times were bad rents should be substantially reduced, and that when things temporarily got a little better they should not be increased in a hurry and certainly not by any great amount. Now, since 1940, we have had sixteen years of relative prosperity, but sixteen years is not a very long time, in comparison with the sixty years of adversity which came before it.
There are a great many owners of land who have not yet grown out of the habit of thinking that it is anti-social to try to get more rent out of their farms. One of the most valuable things in British farming is the good personal relations which usually exist between the owner and the tenant. If you have an old tenant who is also an old friend, who is the kind of man who is likely to "jib" at any idea of increasing his rent, and if he does not want any improvements or anything done to his farm, if he is quite happy to go on without modern equipment and is farming reasonably well according to his lights, and earning, perhaps, rather less than an agricultural worker, your natural inclination is to leave him alone, and certainly not to insist on spending a whole lot of capital on which you will not be allowed to obtain any return at all.
On the other hand, there are many farmers now, progressive men, who are not only willing but anxious to pay a very much higher rent if their farm is provided with the most up-to-date modern fixed equipment. But, even so, I think that the highest rents now of the most modern farms in 1957 are still
292
actually less than the rents of those same farms a hundred years ago, in 1857, when costs and prices were not at all comparable with what they are now. And, of course, the general level of rents today, in 1957, is only about half of what it was a hundred years ago. As my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney has pointed out, arbiters who decide questions of rent are accustomed to give their awards on the basis of about one-half of what would be obtained in a competitive market if a farm was to let.
I myself have sometimes been criticised for not trying to raise rents, and I should certainly not think of criticising anybody else for not trying to do so; indeed, in some cases it is not to the personal advantage of the landowner himself that the rent should be raised. But I cannot help feeling that it would be to the advantage of the country if the general level of agricultural rents were on a much more realistic basis, because a rent which, without being exorbitant, is in accordance with economic facts, if it is a realistic rent, a competitive rent, is one of the strongest inducements to better farming and one of the strongest deterrents to slackness and a willingness to go plodding on on a low standard of living, protected against misfortune by Government guaranteed prices.
The only method we have at the present time of getting rid of bad farmers is by correction, followed, if necessary, by dispossession by the agricultural executive committees. With great respect to the noble Earl and others of your Lordships who have given valuable service on these committees, agricultural executive committees do not always act with the best judgment in these cases, and in any event the number of farmers who are farming badly enough to justify this drastic and inhuman remedy of eviction is not great enough to make the slightest practical difference to the general standard of farming efficiency in this country. You cannot divide farmers into two classes, those who are bad enough to be dispossessed by an agricultural executive committee and those who are good enough to go on. There are all types of farmers, and all grades of efficiency.
What I think we need for the sake of better farming in this country is not that anybody should be evicted, but that some of the less efficient farmers should be persuaded to retire, like some of Her

293
Majesty's Ministers, a little sooner than they might otherwise have done, to make way for other men who are supposed to be more enterprising. We are all well aware of the large numbers of young, able men, with great skill in farming, who are longing to get a farm but who cannot get one because there are hardly any farms to let in the market. At the same time, we must remember that there are great many old men who are farming very well indeed—perhaps even better than some of the younger men with university diplomas. But I have no doubt at all that in our agriculture to-day there are too few openings for too many good men, and perhaps a little too much security for some men w ho are not quite so good. The question of security of tenure under the 1947 Act is far too big a subject to be raised on a debate on this White Paper, but I think the question of rents and that of security will have to be reviewed in some way, by the Government and by the farmers, if this programme of capital re-equipment on which the Government propose to embark, is to produce the results which it ought to produce, both for the industry and for the public.
5.3 p.m.
EARL FERRFRS: My Lords, may I be allowed to add my congratulations to those of the noble Earl who has just sat down on the magnificent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave? I think we all feel that he spoke with great knowledge and in a manner that held our attention all the way through. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
My Lords, I was most impressed by the provisions which Her Majesty's Government made in the long-term assurances for agriculture announced in the White Paper. It could have been no easy task for a Minister, in a time of economic stringency, to find a way of supporting agriculture, both firmly and fairly, and at the same time find a method of injecing new capital, or encouraging new capital to be brought into the industry. I do not believe that I should be alone in feeling that the assurances that we have been given have exceeded even the wildest hopes of the most fervent optimist. I consider that to guarantee that the individual price of commodities will not decrease by more than 4 per cent. and that the
294
total guarantees will be at least 97½ per cent. of the previous year's price, is an extremely bold step. Taken at a time when food is in relative plenty, I think it is an extremely bold step, and, I must confess, quite an alarming one.
I cannot help feeling that these guarantees as such—I have mentioned this before, but I do so again because I think it is rather important—are designed primarily to assure the farmer of a fair return on his capital and on his work; and the whole crux of the matter must be to reduce our costs. Although these guarantees give confidence to the industry and thereby attract fresh capital, they do not in themselves create a lowering of costs. Our idea must be to get sufficient capital introduced into the industry to enable us to modernise, and thereby to reduce our costs of production. That is why I was delighted to see in these assurances the provision for a 33⅓ per cent. grant on fixed equipment and building. To my mind, that is by far the best way of spending the taxpayers' money, and I believe that it will prove to be a great success. I am surprised to see that Her Majesty's Government consider that the demand will require them to spend only £50 million in ten years, which, after all, is only £5 million a year. I should have thought that the demand would require a considerably greater sum than that.
However, there are two points which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention and about which I should like to make borne suggestions. Whatever business one is in—whether it is as an individual or as a nation—to be successful one must always look to the future; one must anticipate it and endeavour to keep one step ahead of one's competitors. I should like to suggest to your Lordships one way in which the agricultural industry can do this—namely, by the encouragement of irrigation. There is in this country great scope for irrigation. At the moment it is mostly a novelty. Its capital cost is extremely high. I should like to see Her Majesty's Government show more of the foresight and initiative that they have shown in this White Paper, by allowing a grant on the capital cost of irrigation equipment. It is difficult to generalise on such things, but may I give a very rough idea? It would cost an average or reasonably

295
sized farm to equip itself with adequate irrigation facilities between, say, £750 and £1,000. That is a lot of money, and farmers will not willingly spend that money on such equipment. They will argue—perhaps perfectly rightly—that is may be a wet year and there will be no need for it; or, alternatively, they will say that crops have always been produced in the past without it, and that this would be a rich man's luxury.
I suggest to your Lordships that that point of view may not necessarily be correct. Everything that one grows has as its prime constituent water. Sugar beet consists of about 80 per cent. of water; mangolds, 90 per cent.; grass, 80 per cent.; even barley when it comes off the combine has frequently about 20 per cent of water. That means that for every five sacks of barley that you get off the combine, one consists of water. I often wonder whether one is being sensible to spend a lot of money on fertilisers and to subsidise them in order to encourage their use, or to subsidise and to encourage the ploughing up of pastures in order that we should get the benefit of the humus, if the main requirement, which is water, is missing.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I ask the noble Earl a question? He did not mention the size of the farm to which he was referring.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening. I did not say that on purpose, because obviously it would depend on how near the farm was to water, and considerations of that sort. The farm I had in mind was one of approximately 400 acres; but it is difficult to give any hard figures, and I am perfectly prepared to be told that I was both extravagant in my suggestion and also not extravagant enough. I give those figures only as a rough guide. Particularly during the last year, we have all seen crops that have been sown but have not germinated for about a month, simply because they have not had the water they required; and when they do germinate those crops never bear the full amount they would normally bear.
Again, we are told that we must increase our quantity and quality of grass by applying nitro-chalk and sulphate of ammonia. One can apply as many such
296
fertilisers as one likes, but without the rain to wash them in and make them work, they represent money wasted. I believe that in the future irrigation will play a very considerable part in our agriculture and that, always provided that farms have access to water, irrigation will become as common as fertiliser sowing is now. There is a tremendous amount of productivity there for the asking, if only we see that our land is watered when water is required. I believe that the loss of production due to the fact that either one has not enough water throughout the year, or that what rain there has been has come at the incorrect time, would be quite considerable if it could be ascertained. I should like Her Majesty's Government to give practical encouragement in this direction, because by retrieving this production which would otherwise be lost, one can gradually lower one's costs.
I will mention to your Lordships one other aspect which I feel is rather important, the selling, or so-called "marketing", of our goods. I want to focus attention on only one particular point. Why is it that the farming community are so completely oblivious to advertising? One may not like advertising, whether in the Press or on radio or television, but nobody disputes its worth. I believe that there is only one aspect of agriculture that is really strongly advertised—milk; and though latterly that advertising has not had the success which some may have wished, mostly due to over-production, it initial success was tremendous. It seems to me fantastic that farmers who wish to sell their goods can be frightened of, and can even complain about, foreign competition and yet refuse to use the one medium which everyone knows encourages people to buy one's goods.
Why, for instance, do we not advertise British pork or British bacon? We are all familiar with the advertisements to buy Danish bacon, with the result that many consider British bacon to be of inferior quality. One can easily think of the advertisement, "Buy British Bacon", and could build all kinds of niceties around that. The same applies to butter. Danish, New Zealand and Australian butter is all advertised, but I have never yet seen an advertisement for British butter. The same thing applies

297
to our eggs, beef and lamb. I feel that there is tremendous scope for increasing our sales in fostering the idea that people wish to buy British food. Then I consider that we should endeavour to display our products more attractively. Our British bacon or lamb should be branded as such, and we should be proud of it. Again, manufacturers of butter ought to wrap their products attractively, and not be satisfied with something that is little better than printed greaseproof paper. It is surprising how one can sell a product merely by putting it in an attractive cover or wrapping.
LORD KINNAIRD: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is keen on advertising abroad or in this country? Does he mean principally advertising overseas?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I was thinking primarily of advertisting in this country, to encourage people to wish to buy British products, as opposed to foreign products. But the point is the same, whether one wishes to sell agricultural or industrial goods, at home or abroad. If we want to sell them we must make a determined effort to sell them, and not believe that people will come to us and ask to buy them.
We have had only too clear an instance recently of how our foreign competitors are endeavouring to capture our industrial markets with cars. They are out to capture what markets they can, and if we are not prepared to do the same—and to see that they do not capture our markets—that will surely come about; and we shall be the losers. If we in agriculture encourage people to buy our goods, that will stimulate production and give a healthy atmosphere to our agriculture. I feel that the industry should back up the strong lead which Her Majesty's Government have given us in this White Paper. They have given us support, and we should not be prepared to rest on that support but must be prepared to follow it up and endeavour to create in our industry a confidence that will benefit both those who work in it and those who do business with it.
5.18 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who made such an excellent maiden speech. Having myself fairly recently made a maiden
298
speech in your Lordships' House, and also being a farmer, I must confess that I prefer farming under a Conservative Government to making a maiden speech in your Lordships' House.
I welcome, without reservation, the White Paper on Long-term Assurances for Agriculture. This White Paper is obviously the result of a very healthy "get-together" between the Ministry of Agriculture and the farmers' representatives, and it would, without doubt, be ungenerous to offer any criticism at this juncture, as the proposals certainly provide what should be a sound basis for future confidence in the industry. We must not forget, however, that the proposals are, as yet, merely a sound foundation on which to build the future agricultural edifice. If it is built of good mortar, it will assure the future of agriculture; but if the mortar is of poor quality, then I am afraid that agriculture will continue to exist as it does to-day.
There has doubtless been a degree of uncertainty in the industry during the last few years, especially at the time of the Price Review: the farmer has never really known whether his particular type of farming was going to be boosted, or condemned. He has not been able to plan ahead but has had to exist from one Price Review to another. Now, however, things have completely changed, and with the White Paper as a firm foundation there should at least be mutual trust between the farmer and the Government. Surely they have, at least, one aim in common—that is, more output from home resources, something which should not only help the farmers' pockets but should also give relief to our balance of payments, and possibly bring clown the cost of living.
I think it is clear that if we are to meet the challenge of imported food from abroad, and at the same time enable our export industries to compete in the overseas markets, all our food which we grow at home must not only be produced as cheaply as possible but must also be sold to the consuming public as cheaply as possible. I believe that the long-term assurances will do much to bring this about, since Her Majesty's Government seem at last to have realised and acknowledged what a very large part agriculture can play in bringing about an improvement in our balance of payments.

299
The new measures outlined in the White Paper show clearly the Government's intention to support the farmer, and at the same time they give ample evidence of wisdom in the way in which the support is to be given, because it is plain that the proposals, besides helping the farmer, will not be unattractive to the taxpayer. People who are not connected with agriculture are apt to forget—or perhaps they do not know—that the agricultural industry, probably more than any other industry, has to plan ahead. Take, for instance, the case of the dairy farmer. He knows when a young heifer calf is born that it will be at least two and a half to three years before that animal will produce any milk. Furthermore, he knows that it will be even longer before he can make an accurate assessment as to whether the animal is going to be a good milker or a bad milker. A good farmer should always be able to plan ahead, and he cannot do this unless he is confident that the Government will not make any sudden or drastic changes. I believe that at last the farmer has this confidence in the Government.
Having welcomed the general provisions of the White Paper, I should like to say a few words about the implementation of some of the recommendations, especially those concerning the farm improvement scheme or capital grants for buildings. In my view, it is imperative that capital grants for buildings and other fixed equpment should also be of positive long-term benefit to the country as well as to the farmer. In other words, the money to be spent on buildings must be wisely spent, and there is nothing that would more alienate the urban population from the farmer than to see money, especially public money, being mis-spent on farm buildings. Undoubtedly there are many farm buildings in the country that are not only obsolete but also totally inadequate. This is perhaps not surprising, seeing that most of our buildings were erected at a time when labour was cheap and mechanisation barely existed. To-day, mechanisation has largely been forced on the farmer because labour is so expensive. Unfortunately, the farmer often does not get a good return for the money he spends on mechanisation. This, I think, is largely due to the fact that the farmer, having bought his new machines, puts them into
300
what I might call an old factory—old farm buildings which are wasteful and, in many respects, unrewarding.
Paragraph 23 of the White Paper implies that the Government hope that the provisions will lead to a large programme of modernisation on farms throughout the country. I hope that that will be the case. Of course, it is up to Her Majesty's Government to ensure that their present words of wisdom bear fruit. In my view, there are a number of fences to be jumped before Her Majesty's Government can say that they are "out in the straight" in regard to the White Paper. For instance, it has long been realised that, without more capital, the industry cannot function at full efficiency.
In connection with this point, it is sad to look back over the last few years and to note how, in the erection of many buildings, money has been completely wasted. This is disastrous. Buildings have been put up without any planning, and a lot of valuable capital has been wasted. Probably piggeries, more than any other type of building, have had money wasted on them. They have often been built entirely lacking in certain fundamental requirements, with the result that the owner does not get the benefit which he hopes to derive from the new buildings. This is probably due to one of two facts. Either the farmer failed to call in the advisory services that are always at hand, or the advisers themselves lacked some technical knowledge, owing to the fact that in this country we have no research unit for farm buildings. When the farmer builds or reconstructs buildings in the future it is imperative that they should be properly planned. Badly planned buildings can be an extremely bad investment well planned buildings can be, a good investment. A professor of agriculture—Professor Cooper, I think it was—stated the other day that a piggery which could save half a pound of meal in food conversion would be able to redeem itself in ten years. That is an instance of a very good investment.
Our future aim should be to ensure that both new and reconstructed buildings give us maximum efficiency, and to this end it is essential that, when planning is carried out, it should be done, in conjunction with the farmer, by experts who have made a study of the problem, both architecturally and from a works

301
study point of view. The most important thing to remember is that it is not just a question of adding, to existing buildings, bits and pieces here and there, since existing buildings may themselves be quite inadequate, and to add to them would merely be perpetuating an inefficiency. I am certain that there is no worse thing we can do than to increase something that is already inefficient. Proper planning of farm buildings needs a lot of thought and study. I can give an instance. An advisory officer was called in to advise on the replanning of buildings for a forty-five acre farm. This officer spent two days on the job and drew up no fewer than seven possible plans for the farmer. The farmer eventually decided on one of the plans, and the whole scheme was a great success. I maintain that if this advisory officer had not carried out his work in such a painstaking way, it is almost certain that the farmer would merely have added bits and pieces to his farm, and at the end of the clay would still have been left with an extremely inefficient holding.
There is no set plan that will do for all farm buildings. Every farm has its own problems and every one must be settled by individual study by an expert. It is obvious already that a large number of farmers are going to seek the advice of the experts who are available, and the result will be that these advisers will be run off their feet—indeed, I am told that this is already happening. So many inquiries are coming in already that the advisers cannot cope with the work. These farm buildings advisers are "rare birds," because they must have a sound knowledge of practical farming as well as being architects. I consider that the advisory posts in connection with farm buildings will have to be made far more attractive, in order to encourage the present holders of these posts and also to attract those who may think of taking up such work. So much depends on these advisory officers—and much more will depend on them in the future—that we cannot afford to neglect them.
There is one problem that advisory officers have to-day—that is, how they can be certain that they are giving the right prescription for the job. En this country we have no farm buildings research unit, so there is nowhere they can find the highly technical data
302
required. This means that either the advisory officers have to get their information as a result of trial and error with those farmers who are willing to do experimental work—like my noble friend Lord Glentanar, who has clone so much experimental work for the benefit of farmers in the North-East of Scotland—or they have to use the farmers as guinea pigs, in which case the farmers usually know nothing about it. I have already advocated in your Lordships' House that there should be a research unit for farm buildings. I would go further and say that there must be one research unit in England and another in Scotland, owing to the differences in climatic conditions.
It seems odd to me that we have establishments for research into practically every section of agricultural industry except the very heart of the farm, the farm buildings, which are neglected. Practically every other European country has a research unit for farm buildings. In Norway, for instance, the research unit combines teaching with research work. It arranges initial training in the research unit, and, from time to time, refresher courses to which students can return. This means that the research workers are kept in touch with field problems that are brought back by the area advisers, who are always being kept in touch with research work. This is an excellent system, and one that I think might well be copied in this country. From personal experience I have had of the agricultural colleges in Scotland, I have no doubt at all that the staffs of these colleges are to be congratulated on the marathon work they are doing in the interests of agriculture. It is unfortunate, however, that a number of the farmers who most need their advice are usually the last to seek it, and often do not seek it at all.
May I briefly mention one other point—that is, agricultural credit? If it is desired to encourage capital investment in the industry, surely there should be made available for agriculture some sort of national credit institution with reasonably low rates of interest. I think that this is especially necessary just now, when the bank rate is so high. Of course, there should be one proviso before any grant is given: that the application should be scrutinised to ensure that money is made

303
available to finance only sound farm investment schemes. Finally, I believe that the proposals made in the White Paper, if thoughtfully interpreted, should lead to a new era of constructive co-operation between the farmers and the Government.
5.38 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, it is getting late and there are still a large number of noble Lords who have indicated their desire to speak in this important debate, so I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will forgive me if I do not follow him into the subject of research into the design of farm buildings. I think we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, for putting down this Motion at this particular time, because any suggestions or comments which are made in your Lordships' House this afternoon may be taken into account by the Government before the all-important Annual Review of Prices, which will be carried out in a month or two under these new arrangements.
I agree with the view which has been expressed by several noble Lords, that this is possibly the most important step which has been taken in agricultural policy since the passing of the Agriculture Act in 1947, and certainly the most important proposals which have been formulated and put forward since the Conservative Government took office in 1951. For those who, both in and out of Parliament, have pressed for some years for longer-term assurances for farmers, it is certainly gratifying to have a White Paper which gives a completely new basis for future planning in the industry. The proposals for the Annual Price Review under modified conditions and the assurance about the total value of guarantees, which is the most important new factor, and the reference to the arrangement for Special Reviews are all, in my opinion, excellent. As has been said before, I do not believe that any reasonable person could have asked for more, and I join with those who have congratulated the Government and all concerned in working out these new proposals. They deserve full appreciation, not only from those engaged in the agricultural industry but also from the nation as a whole.
304
I do not wish to follow other noble Lords in discussing the proposals which are set out in detail in the White Paper, but I should like to refer for a moment to paragraph 3 of the introduction, where we are told that Her Majesty's Government are continuing to discuss various other problems which are associated with these new proposals, particularly credit and related matters and import policy. I am firmly convinced that, unless the Government come forward with proposals to deal with these problems that are at least as imaginative and far-reaching as the proposals dealing with prices themselves, it will be impossible, in the event, for the whole of the scheme and these detailed suggestions, excellent as they are in themselves, to meet with the success that we all hope they will have.
I should like to refer to capital and credit. Various estimates have been made in the last few months of the total amount of capital required by the industry over the next ten years, which is probably about as far ahead as we can usefully look. I think the lowest common denominator is something of the order of £350 million for fixed equipment, with an additional £750 million of working capital. It appears that the Hill Farming Act and the Livestock Rearing Scheme, the housing provisions and various other Government subsidised schemes, together with the new farm improvement scheme, will provide about £100 million of the fixed equipment over the next ten years. That leaves £250 million of long-term and about £750 million of short-term money that will have to be put into the industry in that period. I understand that the general experience of banks is that, on the whole, farmers are, or have been up to now, reluctant borrowers. I suggest that it is not only important that the credit provisions are there, so that farmers are able to borrow, but also that we should create conditions in which they are willing to borrow.
Taking that last point first, I would point out that the willingness to borrow is going to depend on the confidence instilled by the long-term plan—and I will come back to that in a moment or two. Their ability to borrow is, I think, limited at the present time, and I would suggest two points which possibly the Government could take into consideration. The

305
first is that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, as at present constituted, will have considerable difficulty in taking a serious part in providing as much as £250 million, or any reasonable part of that, over the next ten years. Its present rate of lending—that is to say, during the last two or three years—is about £1½ million a year. I think it would be possible to overhaul the Corporation so that instead of looking backwards and lending a fixed percentage of the current value of what is generally admitted to be an obsolete unit it could lend against the prospects of a modernised farm and become a forward-looking institution, banking on its repayment and its interest from a modernised and improved holding. In that way, I think it could play an important part in providing the counterpart funds for the various schemes for which the farm improvement scheme is going to provide the 33⅓ per cent. After all, unless the other two-thirds is put up from somewhere, we may get little benefit from the current proposals.
I think it would also be possible to enable the Corporation to make loans to tenants for certain types of fixed equipment, for instance, electrification and alterations to buildings in circumstances where the landlords are reluctant to do it themselves, and enable, the Corporation to have a security on those improvements which will rank in front of the actual freehold of the property and be attached to the occupation. If the tenant changed, or the farm fell in hand, the new occupier, whether landlord, purchaser or new tenant, would take over the liability for the loan which had been put into the farm to make the improvement. I would earnestly request the Government to consider whether something on those lines could be done, or whether, at least, some modification to the existing powers of the Corporation could be made.
On the same subject, but in order to cover a slightly different field—namely, that of medium-term credit—I should like to make a slightly different proposal. There are a large number of enterprises which require machinery or investment in livestock over a period of several years but which are not really suitable for ordinary seasonal borrowing—the fluctuating amount of money required to pay for seed; and fertilisers and which is recouped out of the crops each year.
306
Manufacturing industry has been faced with the same problem, particularly in the export field where we have been competing with Germany, Japan and other industrial countries, and have been required to give up to four years' credit and, in some cases, even longer. That requirement was largely met by the formation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department of the Board of Trade which, by providing a Government guarantee for approved exports to certain parts of the world, has enabled these medium-term financial requirements to be met by the banking system. It occurs to me that it would be possible for the Ministry of Agriculture to have a similar Department which would be prepared to guarantee medium-term loans For agricultural investment which are intended to be repaid over a similar period.
I do not want to delve into any detail on the suggestion this afternoon, but it would appear to be possible for the credit guaranteeing department to guarantee the whole of the farmer's bank account and take the risk equally with the bank, so that there will be no need for the segregation of individual items. I feel that some such measure as this, which would be far-reaching, would enable farmers to enter into these medium-term commitments, which are not so easy to finance at the moment, knowing that they had got somebody standing behind them and would not just increase their own personal risk of bankruptcy—it is often purely a personal risk, and not like that of a company borrowing money—if the project did not work out as quickly or in the way they anticipated.
On the question of farmers' willingness to borrow, I should like to refer to the last three paragraphs of the White Paper, which deal with the long-term policy. I must say here that I am not quite so happy about the proposals as some noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I always feel that, in thinking of the long-term policy, we cannot be too often reminded of the broad facts of the situation. Briefly, we are now producing half our food from British farms, and half is being imported. To finance production in this country we are spending £225 million annually. The imports on food absorb 40 per cent. of our export earnings. All the assessments which have been made in recent years indicate that,

307
with the rise of living standards and the natural increase of population, demand is going to go up.
On the importing side, we are really conditioned not only by world prices and the availability of food in other areas, but by our own ability to import in competition with oil, iron ore and all the other raw materials, which, of necessity, have to be brought into this country. In contrast, the amount of food we can grow is much more under our direct control. I most earnestly advocate that, in formulating a long-term policy, Her Majesty's Government should consider whether we cannot be given a plan of the type which the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, asked for in the debate in your Lordships' House last April. He was careful not to ask for a specific plan which told us the exact quantity of the various commodities which were to be produced and the exact price or return which could be expected for them. I think that what he said roughly was that we should know in round figures the quantity of each main product which we intended to grow here, and then arrange to import the balance.
The Government now have complete control over the industry, because, with all the increased security of the new guarantee system, it is still possible, over quite a short period, for the whole of the net profit of the industry to be removed. I am not suggesting that it will be, but it is still possible. I think it is only reasonable that, sitting as they do with that complete control over the future of the industry which is otherwise unprotected, the Government should tell us what the general plan is, because I cannot understand how a farmer, who cannot possibly assess what the nation's requirements are going to be a few years ahead, can be expected to make up his mind if the Government are not prepared to give us even a hint in round terms as to what is expected. I make an appeal for some form of general plan to be produced to give us that sort of information over a period of, maybe, five or ten years.
I should like to make one other comment on the last three paragraphs. We are told that the policy is "to achieve maximum economic output," and in another sentence "what the consumer wants at a reasonable cost," and further
308
on, "maximum economic and efficient production". I find it difficult to know just how that is going to be decided—what is economic and what is a reasonable cost. The tendency, of course, is always to compare the cost of producing something in this country, then to take the import price for the same commodity and make a direct comparison. I should like to suggest that this gives the most misleading answer. First of all, we are operating under conditions where there is an artificial rate for the pound and dollar exchange. We have the most elaborate system of exchange control legislation, and stringent regulations. Those are necessary only because if we did not have them the exchange rate would be something different. Therefore, to take the rate which we have fixed for a number of other reasons, and convert import prices directly on that basis, I suggest does not give the comparative figure which is required if you are going to decide, on that basis, how much food is to be grown in this country.
May I make one other comment in that context? The imported article can be paid for only from the net earnings of the export trade of this country. It makes no contribution to our taxation or to the general level of the economy and the activity of the economy. Anything which is produced in this country bears its full weight of taxation—taxation which is levied on the petrol which is consumed in the tractor, the contribution which the workers make to the National Insurance Scheme, and all the other forms of indirect taxation. It is part of our gross national product upon which the whole of our prosperity depends and upon which the welfare of our country is supported. Therefore, as a matter of fact, I maintain that at an equal price at the port as compared to the farm gate the home grown product is cheaper to us. I am trying to make that point because I think that in determining what is the maximum economic production and what is a fair competitive price these points should be taken into account and it should not be done on this simple arithmetical comparison.
Lastly, and arising out of that, I should like to say that perhaps a long-term plan, such as I have indicated, rather than the long-term policy, would be highly desirable to complete the picture which the

309
Government have given us in this White Paper. Also it would be sounder to base the estimates of what we should grow in this country on our own internal economic system. Looking at what prices and costs are reasonable to bear in this country, and what amount of resources in terms of labour and capital investment we can put into the industry—looking at it from our own point of view and, if necessary restricting imports; and I would go as far as using physical controls on imports (the United States does so, France does so, and Germany does so)—I think it will be extremely difficult for us to get a satisfactory long-term plan which will meet the real requirements of the country unless we are prepared to take that step.
5.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, like previous speakers, I wish to support the noble Lord who moved this Motion. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned the difficulties which farming went through, not only between the wars, but before the First World War. I regret to say that I have not the long memory of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, but I can recall some of the difficulties that farming went through between the two world wars. There is no doubt that recently farmers have been getting restless about the position that farming was reaching. There is no doubt, either, that since this new farming policy was announced, it has give a great boost to farming in general. Certainly farmers that I have spoken to have all welcomed the step that is being taken.
We had a general announcement by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, as to when this assistance should be available, and to what the grants would apply. His point about the availability of the grants will be disappointing to many, but I think we can understand that it is difficult to make those grants more retrospective than they are likely to be. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, referred to this point, and I should like, in passing, to add my congratulations to him on his maiden speech. There is no doubt that this delay will cause difficulties in both the farming industry and the building industry, but the noble Earl gave us some encouragement by reminding us that we could get
310
on with repairs and maintenance. We can certainly help the building industry.
What I should like to ask here—and perhaps the noble Lard who is to reply may be able to give me an answer—is this; as the Government will consider provisional proposals, when will the Bill that is to implement these proposals be introduced? My own feeling, and, I am sure, the feeling of many of us, is that the sooner the Bill comes in the better, because we can then get on with the job. It is most important that we should get this Bill as soon as possible. The noble Earl who spoke for Her Majesty's Government listed a large number of types of building that would qualify. There is one further point I should like to ask about, and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to supply the answer. Do grain stores come into this category for grants? I feel that point is an important one. The question of storing grain is becoming more and more urgent every day. Obviously, it would be a great relief to a number of people if we knew that grain stores would qualify.
I have heard it suggested that the minimum amount for a job to qualify for the grant is £100. It would be interesting to know if that is so. It would also be interesting to know if there is to be a maximum and, if so, what the amount of that maximum will be. That is working on the lines of the housing grants. I may be wrong—I hope I am; but it would be interesting to know. We have heard this afternoon that tenant farmers will be able to apply for these grants. I should like to get this matter quite clear—and perhaps the noble Lord who will be replying will emphasise this. I understood the noble Earl to say that the tenant farmer will be able to get this grant, on condition (if I may put it this way: these were not the words the noble Earl used) that he takes his landlord with him. I think that that is a point which was made by the noble Earl who spoke on that matter. I think it is very important that the tenant farmer should take his landlord with him; otherwise, we may get into great difficulties.
I am sure that one of the points in this White Paper that we welcome is the fact that both electricity and roads are to be eligible for this grant. I should like to raise another point. At present we do get a grant for water supplies, but it

311
is only 25 per cent. Am I am asking too much that Her Majesty's Government should consider raising that grant and bringing it into line with these other proposals of 33⅓ per cent.? I would remind the Government that some years ago that grant was 50 per cent, but was then reduced. I conclude by saying how much I personally welcome these proposals, and I give the noble Lord who moved this Motion my full support.
6.4 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, my first and very pleasant duty from these Benches is to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, on his maiden speech. I listened to that speech with very great interest, and thought that he was telling us many things that needed to be told. He did not entirely agree with Her Majesty's Government on some aspects of the position. I hope that he will, certainly on agricultural or any kindred subjects, speak to us again, and will not leave it for another twenty years.
At this stage, I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to make it clear that, although there have been only two speakers from these Benches this afternoon, it is not through any lack of interest in agriculture: we are all determined and anxious that our agricultural industry shall succeed, and that farmers and workers shall have a fair reward for their labours in supplying the bulk of our foodstuffs here. But I feel that I should also from these Benches make one or two comments on what has been said by noble Lords opposite. Naturally, the Government are entitled to all the flattery they can get from the noble Lords behind them, but there are one or two things upon which I think we should join issue with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, coming from Norfolk, made what I thought was an unnecessary attack upon the President of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, because I can assure him—and he will probably agree with me—that there is no body in this country which has done more to keep the peace in agriculture and to look after the interests of the men who work on the land than the President of the Union. In my view, the President was right—I read his speech: We both take the same papers—in drawing attention to the £29½
312
million. It may be, as he said, that the farmers will suffer a decrease of £29½ million in the first year. I do not know what they are going to suffer in the next year, or the year after, or the year after that; but it may be £29½ million in the first year. If they suffer a decrease in their incomes, they will then be perfectly justified, if the agricultural workers make a claim for an increase in wages, in referring to this decrease in their own incomes. So the decrease in farmers' incomes which may arise under the provisions of this White Paper may have an effect upon the earnings of the workers. It may easily be so, because the workers are leaving the land to a certain extent, and it may be because of the unsatisfactory wages conditions.
The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, gave us full details about the improvements, and I was glad to hear them, because I think it right that we in this House should hear them before they are published. I hope the publication of what he said today will ease the minds of various people as to what the improvements are likely to be. The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, raised the same point that I was intending to raise with the noble Earl: is there any limit, up or down, to the amount which may be spent on a scheme? Is there a bottom or a top in regard to the money which any scheme can have?
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: May I interrupt to say that I would say "any/or a top"?
LORD WISE: Yes, that is what I mean. That is what I was getting at—either a bottom or a top.
The question of cheap loans has also been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and I am inclined to agree about the possibility of the Government working in some scheme of agricultural credits, because my experience of the position after the First World War, when farmers were borrowing money at 6 per cent, 7 per cent. or 7½ per cent. interest, in order to purchase their farms, was that that was the ruination of many farmers. Mortgage interests were terrific, and they were not able, therefore, to put into their productive efforts money which they spent in mortgage interests. It seems to me that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and the Lands Improvement Company are bound, at this particular point,

313
to charge heavy rates of interest for the loans that they make. If that is so, then I think the farmers are going to be a little scared of carrying out the improvements which are envisaged in this White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, expressed the opinion that these improvement loans were likely to help small farmers. It has been suggested that smallholders in this country are possibly now earning less than their workers. I cannot, for the life of me, see how a smallholder is to find the 66⅔ per cent of capital which is required for the improvement to be carried out. He gets his 33⅓ per cent. grant from the Government. Where is the rest to come from? If he has the rest, it is, of course, coming out of capital which he should be using in the cultivation and production of foodstuffs. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, looked in vain for the subject of cooperation in the White Paper. I looked in vain for the word "stability" in the White Paper. Support was mentioned: the propping up of the industry might have been mentioned; but the key words upon which the Agriculture Act, 1947, is founded, the stability of the industry, are left entirely unmentioned in this White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to the concluding paragraphs of the White Paper dealing with long-term policy. I entirely agree with him. I think that in those paragraphs the Government are dodging the issue; they are dodging their obligation which is to supply the foodstuffs necessary for the benefit of the population. How can a farmer in Scotland, or a farmer in Wales, or a farmer in East Anglia, decide, as it is suggested he should decide in these concluding paragraphs, what in the national interest he should grow? What should be grown and what should be produced in this country is something upon which the Government must give a lead. In these particular paragraphs there is no possible lead from the Government as to what is required for the benefit of our people I know that we object to being told that we have to grow so many acres of barley or wheat, but we look for a lead from and the co-operation of the Government in this respect. I hope that that will be forthcoming.
Many noble Lords opposite have referred to the long-term nature of the
314
proposals. If noble Lords will look at paragraph 18 they will find mentioned the term of four years. There is uncertainty as to what may happen at the end of those four years. What shall be done is in the hands of the Government. Four years is not a long term; it is not the span of a Government if it continues in office for its allotted life. I was hoping that the long-term plan of the Government would have been extended in certainty, if I may use those words, and would have been for a longer period than four years.
With regard to the White Paper, I am afraid that I stand absolutely unrepentant on the question of stable prices for our commodities. This White Paper perpetuates exactly what we are suffering from at the present time—the uncertainty of our markets and of our prices. So far as the industry is concerned at the moment, guaranteed prices and assured markets are a fiction and not a fact—the noble Lord shakes his head but I will prove in a moment that they are a fiction. What we farmers want is to know that for what we produce we shall receive fair payment. All other industrialists do. Every person who produces anything says. "That shall be the price." Not so in farming. We are dependent upon the whims—I do not quite know what other word to use—of other people who fix our prices for us. These prices go up and down, as I will prove in a moment, in an extraordinarily stupid and uncertain manner. The system of deficiency payments and individual guarantees, of rolling averages and whatever you may like to call them, is failing dismally.
I am certain that the failure which has been experienced during the last year will have cost the Government a pretty penny when the bill comes to be reckoned up. Administration has been costly; there has been a heavy charge upon the taxpayer by reason of the high deficiency payments which have had to be made, and, what is as important to my mind, there has been a low price for our agricultural products. Doubtless excessive profits have been made by dealers and others who go into a market at Christmas time and pay extraordinary prices for cattle, no doubt in order to get relief in regard to their income tax position.
To my mind this White Paper does not deal with the crux of the matter at all;

315
it simply carries on. It eases the situation year by year, but the same thing applies, and there is no possible guarantee of what we shall get for our products. The noble Lord shook his head a moment ago when I was saying that there was no certainty in anything at all. Let us look at the fluctuation of prices. I have picked at random two cuttings from the journal which has been mentioned many times this afternoon—it may not be recognised by the greenness of the paper—but at any rate here are market reports in regard to cattle. I am interested mostly in the decline of prices of cattle. I have here reports of October 22 and 24. One says:
"Prices for fat cattle continued to drop last week. On an average lightweights"—
I want to deal mainly with Grade A light-weights—
"fell by around 5s. per hundredweight, but heavyweights showed a much steeper decline."
That was in October. The report goes on:
"Increases of 1s. and 2s. per hundredweight occurred at Hereford and Lancaster, and 9s. at Penrith. At Bury St. Edmunds there was an exceptional leap upwards of 23s. for lightweights."
That is one week. In the next week you get the same sort of thing—namely:
"Prices of lightweight cattle continued to drop in a minority of Monday's markets."
This was in November.
So the game goes on. Week by week and market by market, prices rise and fall. If, therefore, the farmer meets a bad market, as it is possible for him to do, he does not obtain the guaranteed price. So that your Lordships may see what we suffer from, I have one or two pieces of information. Here are the prices at Banbury market, which the noble Earl will know is a very big market. On November 22, Grade A lightweights averaged 97s. per cwt. On November 29, they were 96s.—they had gone down 1s. On December 6, they had gone up to 102s. At the Christmas market they naturally jumped up to 129s. or 130s.; but for those periods during November and the beginning of December they were dropping steadily from round about 100s. down towards 90s.
Then let us look at Norwich. On December 29 they averaged 148s. per cwt., which, on the week, was a rise of
316
28s. per cwt. Who, in the farming industry, can hope to plan his business on happenings of that kind, when a similar beast in one week makes 28s. per cwt. more than it would have made in the previous week? Now prices have jumped and I see that last week it was 141s. at Banbury and 143s. at Kings Lynn. Imagine the position of the man who has got rid of his fat cattle at the bad end of the year and sees these prices rise. He does not gain by the deficiency payments because he is shillings out, for as the price rises, so the average increase in the deficiency payment decreases. Yet as he sold his cattle on a bad market, he suffers.
Here is another example of what is, in my view, the stupidity of the markets and where we ought to start dealing with this problem. I have here particulars of two pens of similar lambs, taken out of the same flock with the same hurdles and just run in—not sorted. One pen was graded out at 52 lb. each, the other pen of similar lambs was graded at 50 lb. each. Anybody who thinks seriously about it would have thought that of those lambs from practically the same flock and practically the same in weight and grading, the 52 lb. lambs might have made perhaps 2s. more than the 50 lb. lambs: but such was not the case. The 52 lb. lambs each made 14s. less than the 50 lb. lambs; therefore, if one price was right, the other price was wrong. The long and the short of it was that somebody got hold of lambs possibly at a price cheaper than the proper price. One came out at about 3s. 1d. a lb. and the other at 3s. 7d; yet they were similar lambs, little different except in weight. How can a farmer, when he takes his cattle, sheep or lambs into the market, expecting a fair price, put up with that kind of thing—to go home and find that somebody else has had his lambs at 14s. a head less than they should have paid? I could go on to various other things, but I want to come back to the position when we used, as in war time, to send our stock to market. We did not need to go ourselves to the market because we knew the stock would be graded satisfactorily and weighed and sold at a controlled price.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I ask how he proposes to have these absolutely

317
controlled prices when at certain times there is more than the market requires? At the time of which he is speaking, in war time, there was a shortage and rationing. Does the noble Lord want to go back to rationing and complete control right the way through? If so, will he please say so?
LORD WISE: My Lords, had the noble Earl not jumped up, I was just coming to that point. If Her Majesty's Government can decide, with the co-operation of the Farmers' Union, on various factors which have to be, taken into consideration in regard to guaranteed prices and deficiency payments, then Her Majesty's Government can decide, in co-operation with the Farmers' Union, what should be a fair price for a fair beast, according to weight and grade. If that can be done in regard to the guaranteed price, then the controlled price can be fixed, just as we used to have it. Her Majesty's Government do it now with sugar beet. The price is fixed and payment is made for sugar beet and the grower knows exactly what he is going to get according to the percentage of sugar (the noble Earl laughs; I do not know exactly how they arrive at the percentage of sugar but I will leave at that) and according to the dirt tare. There the producer is batting on a certain wicket, but he is not on a good wicket in regard to livestock or cereals.
During the last few days we have heard of the new payments in regard to wheat. I believe the first payment was 4s. 6d., which was on the standard price of wheat. Here the price is being fixed according to the month in which is sold and according to the standard price of wheat, which was 27s. per cwt. in that particular first period. With a difference of 4S. 6d. the price might average out at about 22s. 6d. per cwt. For the second period the price fixed by the Government is 29s. and the payment is a fraction over 6s.; and, in effect, the average for that week is still about 22s. But, so far as I can see, if the Government pay 4s. or 4s. 6d. for one period, then, in the ordinary accepted sense of things the merchants should be paying more for their wheat in the second period when the price becomes some 29s. or 30s. But I am not certain that they are paying more, and that is what I object to. I do not want to weary the House longer, but I am certain in my own mind that, whatever you do in regard
318
to this White Paper, whatever you do in regard to what you describe as your long-term policy for years, sooner or later, in order to ensure stability and fair shares for the agricultural industry, you will have to go back for a period to controlling the price the producer receives for his commodity.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, do I understand that he is against this White Paper?
LORD WISE: I am not in favour of deficiency payments. I want to know exactly what I am going to receive for the article I produce. I do not want to be mixed up in two or three different cheques for the same item. I think it is not beyond the wit of man to devise such a scheme as I suggest. There is just one further small point which is troubling some of us in Norfolk, as the noble Earl will know, and that is the export of fat cattle to France. I do not see why we, as consumers, cannot have an opportunity of consuming all our home products. Now we export home products to France and we import from the Argentine—that is to say, from the dollar area. To me it does not make sense.
6.31 p.m.
LORD WALPOLE: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to take up much of your Lordships' time, but I felt that I could not let the occasion pass without supporting Her Majesty's Government and expressing my thanks to them for producing what promises to be a milestone in the history of British agriculture in the form of the long-term assurances set out in the White Paper. It was last April that I had the honour of addressing your Lordships for the first time during a debate on agriculture, and I then put forward a plea for a long-term policy. I would not for a moment claim the credit for initiating the idea—as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said this afternoon, it has been put forward since about 1951—but I like to feel that I at least had a share in it. It is always easy to criticise Her Majesty's Government, but I find it a pleasant task to-day to congratulate all those who have clearly taken a great deal of time and trouble in formulating these assurances.
An aspect which appeals to me particularly—and I am sure I shall be voicing the opinion of a large number of farmers

319
when I say this—is the one set out in paragraph 11, whereby the guarantees fixed at the annual review will relate to the immediately succeeding harvest, instead of the harvest of the following year. This, to my mind, is a great step forward, because, in the past, the Price Review referred to the next harvest but one, and by the time that was reached the situation, it was more than likely, had completely altered and the price structure was quite out of date.
Now, at the risk of sounding ungrateful, I am going to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will do something else. I am going to ask them whether they will take immediate steps to rectify a matter which I consider nothing less than a national scandal. I refer to the attestation scheme, and I would urge the Government to press forward with this scheme with the utmost rapidity. We have been told, encouraged, and even threatened, that we must increase our efficiency. In paragraph 30 of this White Paper on long-term assurances it says, and I quote:
"In present circumstances the Government's responsibility is to provide the conditions in which an efficient industry can operate with confidence in the future and that will continue to be a major Government objective …"
I consider that to have one's cattle attested is of paramount importance, more especially with regard to the health of the nation. To produce milk and beef of the best quality is only what the public expect, and rightly so. Those of us who have had our herds attested run the grave risk of infestation from cattle on neighbouring farms, and those who sell their high quality milk to the Milk Marketing Board have it thrown into the pool with disease-ridden milk, where it is subjected to the indignity known as pasteurisation. Why, if I may ask, all that unnecessary expense? Is it a wonder that a large amount of the free milk which is supplied to our schools remains undrunk? I am fully aware that there are already areas in this country which are attested, and that plans for the whole country are going forward—but much too slowly. I have heard it said that it will take ten years. That, I consider, is too long. Half that time, or even a quarter of it, is long enough, and now that the Government have announced terms for the Farm Improvement Grant Scheme, it should be given top priority.
320
We are told that the production of liquid milk has now reached the limit of demand, and that surplus milk will have to be sold for processing at a greatly reduced price. I think that this matter should be tackled immediately and that those farmers—and they have had, after all, ample warning—who do not and will not (some, indeed, never intend to) become attested, should have their licences removed and they should transfer their attentions to some other branch of farming. I believe that in this way the milk situation would be greatly relieved and immeasurably improved.
6.38 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I am wholeheartedly in favour of the scheme of long-term assurances. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating the large number of arguments which have been produced in their favour and which I have gradually crossed off my notes. There is one point, however, which I should like to mention. There has been so much praise of the assurances that I rather wonder whether, possibly, they are not expected to do almost too much. As I have said, I wholeheartedly agree with them as a long-term policy, but they cannot deal with the quick and unexpected falls in prices, as is shown in the White Paper itself, in paragraph 19, which deals with the Special Reviews which are still to be kept in being for this purpose. Special Reviews I do not like either, because they savour too much of a hand-to-mouth method; but until complete stability can be arrived at—which is almost impossible—these Reviews will, I imagine, have to be continued. That was shown especially in the very rapid, and nearly disastrous, fall in cattle prices, which was put right by the Special Review of last year. I hope that a Bill dealing with the dumping of cattle in this country, which I believe is now going through another place, will at least help to put that matter right.
Turning to the second part of the White Paper, which sets out the farm improvement scheme, there are two points I should like to put to my noble friend who is to reply. The first deals with electricity, which is included in paragraph 25. I rather wondered, when my noble friend said that fittings would not be eligible for grants, whether under

321
"fittings" he included, for instance, electric motors, which are of the greatest importance. Their importance is shown by some figures which I have from Scottish Agricultural Economics which, I would say, with apologies to my noble friend Lord Dundee, I have brought with me. These figures are remarkable. In 1942, there were 4,600 electric motors on the farms; in 1954, there were 17,000, and in 1956, 21,500: so that their importance is undoubtedly realised by the farming industry. I would say that they are fixed equipment and I hope that my noble friend will be able to include them in other parts of grain-storing equipment as being eligible for grant.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, as a landlord, he would be prepared to provide electric motors for his tenants?
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I think my noble friend will agree that that would depend on the type of lease; but for some tenants I say frankly, No; I would not. Another thing which my noble friend mentioned was that Her Majesty's Government were continuing the grant for the construction of silos. I should have thought that the introduction of these long-term improvement schemes provided a good opportunity to amalgamate some of these individual grants, especially the smaller ones. It takes the farmer a great deal of time and research to find out what particular grant covers any particular improvement, and I thank it would be a great easing if something on these lines could be done.
Before sitting down, I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Forbes said about the work done by the agricultural colleges in Scotland. I know about this work, because I have the honour to be President of one of them. Their field workers do an enormous amount in advising and helping, and to my knowledge a great deal of use is made of these people by farmers who seek expert advice. I am quite sure that these long-term assurances will have a great effect on the general confidence in agriculture, and I wish them all success.
6.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, no one in any sphere of agriculture can do anything but approve of the
322
broad principles of the long-term assurances which have been put before us, and, as a farmer, I would associate myself with the public expression of gratitude of Sir James Turner to Her Majesty's Government for producing these long-term assurances. I am sure that they have increased the confidence of the agricultural community in our present Administration. Our present agricultural learn are to be congratulated on their achievement, and also for not having been "reshuffled." and for being left with us to look after a sphere with which they have dealt so capably.
The fundamental importance of the commodity guarantees can be found in paragraph 18, which sets out the particular and general assurances as regards percentages until 1962–63. In effect, farmers now have the "green light" for planning for five years ahead, which, whilst I agree that it is not a long time in which to plan, is certainly better than no time at all, as we had in the past. Now, subject to minor alterations in the economics of the production of any particular commodity, prices are to be steady. The noble Viscount opposite talked of wheat being altered in one year by 6s. 8d. a ton, disregarding cost changes. As a farmer, I should not object greatly to a difference of 6s. 8d. a ton in the selling price of my wheat. I think it is worth rioting that the total guarantees cannot be reduced, disregarding cost changes, by more than £29 million in any one year and that, equally, the value that has been set on the increased efficiency of agriculture is £25 million a year; so that even if the guarantees are reduced by their maximum amount the reduction is almost covered by the farmers' increasing efficiency.
The farm improvement scheme is certainly a bold attack on the problem of worn-out and inadequate fixed equipment on so many holdings, though it only touches the fringe of the problem of the less economic small farms. In my part of the country, in Cumberland and Westmorland, the system is essentially grass farming, where the chief product is milk, with livestock coming afterwards; and most of the farms in these two counties are family holdings not employing much paid labour. Whilst we welcome the long-term assurances, there is some reserve and even, in some cases, apprehension. As I

323
say, by and large our farms are occupied and worked by families. They range from good fertile farms, in the lowlands and valleys, to the cold and damp high-lying places in the Pennine and Lake District fells. Most rely on milk for the greater part of their income. It is just such farms as these that are the problem farms in British agriculture. Long-term assurances hardly touch this problem. Many families operate on the borderline between a reasonable standard of life and poverty. In many cases, occupiers live in something that is hardly known in England nowadays, in grinding poverty. I could take your Lordships to some farms in Cumberland and Westmorland which are a disgrace to the country.
We have heard that, nationally, we are over-producing milk; we are producing more than the consumer can drink or will drink. Unfortunately, there is great anxiety in the minds of small producers for whom it is not economic, or not desirable, to turn to anything else. I have heard it suggested that they should turn more to pigs and poultry, but we have also heard that this country is already producing as many pigs and as much poultry as it can afford to import feeding-stuffs for.
What is the future for so many of these small family farms? Disregarding highly specialised and intensive smallholdings, small family farms—that is, farms under 100 acres—represent about one-third of the holdings, and a quarter of the acreage of England and Wales. If we are to accept a net income of £500 a year as a justifiable reward to a family farmer for his labour and the capital he employs, it is true to say that about 40 per cent. of them (these are from the Cambridge University research figures) have a net income of less than £500 a year. That, as I say, includes both their labour and some interest on the capital they have in their businesses. In my experience, while many of them are probably credit-worthy, most of them have not the capital to add to the fixed equipment on their farms. While there is a new farm improvement scheme, and the other continuing capital grant schemes—I am talking of the Livestock Rearing Act Scheme, which is as important in the North as this scheme will be—I do not think that much capital will be spent on
324
small farms. So there will be little done to make them more productive through equipping them with labour-saving buildings. I think that, as usual, it is the bigger and richer farms which will benefit most from the capital improvement scheme.
Small farms have a great value nationally, from the social point of view, although I do not think there is any greater production per acre, and certainly not per man and per unit of capital, than on the larger farms. But they do keep the countryside populated, directly, or indirectly, through the shops, merchants and rural industries whose services, as small farmers, they need to employ. But, most important, particularly in livestock areas, these family farms have a certain amount of surplus members of their families—extra sons they cannot employ at home—who often go out as paid labour on other farms. They are, without exception, trained comprehensively on family farms as highly-skilled general workers and excellent stockmen, of whom too few are to be found nowadays.
Long-term assurances qualify the grants to small farms. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper suggest that grants should go only to "economically viable units". I should like to know what an "economically viable" unit is. How can it be decided whether a farm can yield a net income of £7 1s. per week, or whatever the agricultural wage may be at the time? The only Government publication that touches on this problem that I have seen is the Mid-Wales Investigation, which deals only with Welsh upland farms. They recommend that a whole-time farm should be able to carry 500 hill ewes, or an equivalent number of stock. I know farms where there are, perhaps, only 200 hill ewes, and nothing else, but where the farmers make a reasonable income. It will be interesting to see how it is to be worked. These paragraphs about the "economically viable units", and those dealing with the aid to amalgamation, fill many of these proud and independent farmers with a good deal of apprehension. I would ask the Government whether they think the farm improvement scheme is going to help small farmers to inject capital into their fixed equipment to any considerable extent.

325
The solution to the problem, as I see it—and it is widely recognised—is that more independent, vigorous and intensive farming should be practised on many of these small farms to increase the output per acre and per man, and thus give a larger margin of profit. This requires improvement to fixed equipment to provide for the saving of labour. It requires a good deal of education of some of the older and more set small farmers. I suggest that, rather than employing theoretical, college-trained advisory officers, as the advisory services so often do, and sending out circulars and giving the farmers highly technical advice, which they may well not understand, if they could employ a number of these farmers' sons who are scouring the country looking for farms, which it is impossible to obtain, due to the shortage, who could give sound practical advice, they would achieve much more. Some amalgamation is obviously necessary, and probably a 40-acre farm is small enough, if the land is good. But many farmers augment their incomes from other occupations: in some areas it is mining, and in others it is taking in holiday-makers and lodgers in the summer. I think it would be an interference with freedom if there were ever a question of compulsory amalgamation of these small farms, or, for that matter, of any others. But it is encouraging that there is some move towards amalgamation.
Practically speaking, if these farms are to become more intensive, what product can they produce more of? As I have said. I think pigs and poultry are "out" and it gets back to grass and milk. The increase in milk production on small farms can be only at the expense of production on larger farms. I know that it sounds arbitrary, but I think it would be logical to encourage larger farms to produce more beef and rather less milk; to pay a differential price for milk, paying substantially more for small daily wholesale deliveries and rather less for large daily wholesale deliveries. It would give the small farmers a boost to increase their milk production, and would discourage large farms from producing even larger quantities of milk and encourage them to produce more beef.
So far as capital is concerned, I agree with what has been said by many other noble Lords, that the agricultural loan
326
companies to which recourse is advocated, are an expensive source of capital, particularly for a small farmer. The interest rates are high; and not only that: the initial charges for obtaining the loan are considerable by the time the lawyers have prepared the documents and everything else. For the small farmer to get a loan of £500 it might cost him another £50, £60 or £70. If there could be low-interest-rate Government loans to agriculture expressly for fixed equipment, I believe that it would help these small fanners. Incidentally, it would also give a certain amount of Government control over credit for fixed equipment. After all, there is a precedent for this: there are forestry loans for tree planting. As I say, the Government would do a great service, and would achieve surprising results, if they would tackle the problem of these small farmers. These small family farmers number a third, or at least 100,000, of the agricultural holdings in the country, comprising upwards of 6 million acres.
We have had a Royal Commission on Commons which has investigated a much less essential agricultural problem. Commons cover only 2 million acres. If the problem of the small farmers—and it is a serious problem—is little understood, why not a Royal Commission to look into it from its social as well as its economic aspects? To conclude, I welcome these long-term assurances as being a real contribution towards the achievement of a stable, highly productive and less dependent agriculture, but I do ask Her Majesty's Government to do more to tackle the serious and urgent problem of the small family farmers.
7.3 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to support my noble friend, Lord Amherst of Hackney, in his Motion, and n doing so to congratulate Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Ministers on behalf of the farming community for this bold measure which they have outlined to us in the White Paper we are discussing this evening. I should also like to express our congratulations to Her Majesty's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place on his reappointment, and to my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, in your Lordships' House, on his reappointment in Her Majesty's Government. To the

327
farming community, I am quite certain that this is a symbol of confidence and continuity that we wish in these times, and it is most popular that they have been so reappointed.
In the course of this lengthy debate in your Lordships' House, we have heard a maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave which I am certain will be remembered and re-read many times in the future. We have also heard a speech from that grand old man of agriculture, my friend and kinsman, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I support what he has said and what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said with regard to cooperation. Her Majesty's Government may be able to advise farmers to see whether they cannot do something more in the line of co-operative societies in the near future. I am certain that something will have to be done in this direction if we are to compete with the farming community in European countries and on the other side of the Atlantic, which have been developed to such a tremendous extent.
It should not be forgotten, I feel, that if a farmer does not wish to take a gamble, he can put his stock at the disposal of the Fat Stock Marketing Corporation—something on the lines of a "Co-op"—and receive a price which he knows in advance. That is a trend, and possibly a successful trend, and Her Majesty's Government have indicated, not only in this White Paper but in other publications, that they will support all such co-operative ventures of all the marketing schemes and organisations, in order to give that stability which the farming world so much desires. I believe that, with this confidence, stability has come much closer as a result of this White Paper.
I bring only one point before your Lordships this evening. I feel that the landlord is a much maligned person in these days. I must say that I have an interest, but I feel that I speak on behalf of many thousands of conscientious and hard-working landowners who are endeavouring to do the best for the holdings of land which they possess. In 1938, the landowner had invested some £800 million capital in land and equipment. By 1953, that investment had
328
increased to £1,850 million. That is largely due to the decrease in the value of money. I do not think it could be argued how that figure is arrived at, but I should say that the capital value of the land and the buildings may be claimed to have roughly doubled. But the interest, as we have heard already this afternoon, is under 1 per cent. on that sum.
Equally, the tenant is becoming a senior partner in this agricultural partnership. In 1938 his capital invested was £448 million. In 1953, we find that he invested £1,615 million, very nearly equal to the landlord's share. The tenant is given an increasing slice of the agricultural prices cake year by year. He is able to reap the benefit of the guaranteed prices and the supports about which we have been speaking this evening. But there is no such increase to the investment income which the landlord is able to receive; yet, at the same time, his costs are directly dependent upon the rules and decrees of the wages boards which equally affect the tenant.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am most interested in this. To enable us to get a better view of this matter, could I ask the noble Earl whether he has obtained figures of the increase in rents from landlord-owned property in the same period, and how it comes about that, if there are reasonable increases in rents, the return is still only 1 per cent.? I am not criticising; I am simply anxious to get information.
EARL BATHURST: I believe that rents have very nearly doubled since 1938. I have found the reference, and it has been given as 1 per cent. on the capital invested. That is the income to the landlord. It would seem disparaging to say so, but figures can be made to prove almost anything. There is a reference for it, and I will give it to the noble Viscount.
But £225 million is the price which the taxpayer is paying to the farmer as a subsidy. That relates to the year 1954. That is the extent to which agricultural goods are being provided for by the taxpayer. The net profit on farms during 1954 has been given as something in the region of £224 million. It can be argued that the taxpayer is just about providing the net profit which the farm holding is

329
earning. Of course, that is not quite accurate for every single case; but, nevertheless, it is most remarkable that as the subsidy upon agriculture rises, so in exactly the same proportion does the net profit rise year by year. That has been so since the Act of 1947. It seems that there will be a great chance for Her Majesty's Government, when they bring a Bill before your Lordships, to find some ways and means by which the small landlord—I am not talking about great landed estates; I mean a landlord with, perhaps, 400 or 500 acres split up into three or four different farms—will be able to take advantage of the rising prosperity that will be derived by the agricultural industry as a result of these moves. I am not absolutely confident in the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill which is also referred to. I hope that when this Bill comes before your Lordships it will be possible To make quite certain that a fair market price in the country of origin really is a fair price in this country when the goods arrive here. Overseas, there are families who work on the land from dawn until, dusk. They enjoy working there. Their produce is sent to a "co-op." and it is then sold in bulk to importers in this country. It may well be a fair price in the land of origin, but is it a fair price when finally it turns up here, where our wages and costs are very largely controlled from year to year?
Lastly, I hope that the noble Lord, in replying, will be able to give an assurance that the protections that are now becoming possible against that dread disease, foot-and-mouth disease, will be carried out with all urgency. It is a premium of some £800,000 every year to carry out the slaughter policy of Her Majesty's Government. That policy may be right; it may be wrong. Other countries are finding great: success with new serums, most of which have been developed and, they say, approved in our own Pirbright Centre. I hope that it will be possible to show that foot-and-mouth disease in the near future can be abolished, and that that is the policy towards which we are working. I beg to support my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in his Motion and, in so doing, to thank Her Majesty's Government and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate to-day.
7.13 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think the debate has clearly shown that the House approves the Government's efforts to provide a stable foundation for our home agriculture, and that we have succeeded in that object. Consequently, I am the more readily able to express my own hope that your Lordships will accept this Motion, and to express my thanks to all those who have spoken in support of it, in some degree or other. Most noble Lords, as I have said, have spoken in support, although many of them have had some qualifications to make on many subjects. Your Lordships will, I feel, forgive me if, at this hour, I do not try to touch on every one of those subjects and answer every question which has been raised; otherwise we should be here for a very long time. But I will do my best.
I particularly welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in his most notable maiden speech. If I may, I should like to call it the intelligent support which he gave to the Motion in a most capable and well-thought-out speech. He has shown himself to be well up to the rather high standard of agricultural debate in your Lordships' House. We hope that he will continue to speak thus for a long time. I even find a little encouragement from the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I know that he is much too good an agriculturist to view a measure like this and damn it with faint praise, but he will forgive me if I put it this way: that he rather praised it with faint damns. To find those damns he had to go well back into the past. He gave us a diverting survey over the last forty or fifty years. I know hat he will forgive me if I do not follow him in this, because, so far as my colleagues and I are concerned, our eyes are on the future.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It would be very awkward to answer, I expect.
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney referred to a point which I should like to emphasise. The proposals set out in this White Paper are a development and not, as was suggested, a change of policy. The Government have repeatedly pledged their support for the principles of Part I of

331
the Agriculture Act, 1947, and have promised that any changes in guaranteed prices will be made only gradually, to enable farmers to adjust their plans. Fears remained that sudden changes in the guarantees might be made after any Annual Review, and we were very anxious that there should be confidence in the future. We therefore set about the task of allaying these fears by strengthening the Agriculture Act at points where experience had shown that it was weak. Consequently, the proposed assurances are merely the implementation of promises previously made.
Your Lordships will remember that the Act provides for the fixing of crop price guarantees at each Annual Review for the harvest of the following year, and for the fixing of minimum prices for livestock and livestock products some two to four years ahead. In practice, however, the minimum prices so determined have not proved effective, because there has been no mechanism for taking account of changes in circumstances, and particularly cost increases, between the time when the minimum prices are determined and the time when they become operative. Our new assurances set a limit to the reduction that may be made, year by year, in the guaranteed prices for each commodity, which should be much more effective in keeping the minimum guarantees up to date. In fact, the minimum assurances will be related year by year to prevailing levels of guarantees, which will have been determined in the light of all relevant factors, including movements in costs. Moreover, they will also extend to crops, as well as to livestock and livestock products.
Further, the assurances on individual commodities are, of course, accompanied by a general assurance which limits the scope for reduction in the total value of the guarantees following any Annual Review. This again will serve to reduce the element of uncertainty that is inseparable from the holding of a Review each year. It has been said that these assurances still leave room for a substantial reduction in the total value of the guarantees. This is a point that the noble Viscount made. Of course, this is quite true, unless—and this is a most important qualification—there has been a significant increase in costs since the last Annual
332
Review. If there has been a substantial increase in costs, the minimum assurances may well mean that the total value of the guarantees must be increased. If there has not been such an increase, it would clearly not be right to rule out any possibility of a significant reduction in the guarantees.
The farmers' leaders have fully recognised, as do we, that scope must be left within reasonable limits for a so-called "under-recoupment" of costs. The limits that we have set for this purpose are, in fact, very reasonable, bearing in mind the many factors that have to be taken into account at a Review, such as production and marketing requirements, exchequer liability and increasing efficiency. But even if our consideration of all the relevant factors led us to decide to reduce the total value of the guarantees to the minimum allowed by the assurances, the effect on the industry's net income would be a great deal less than that reduction. This is because the industry's net income will always reflect the benefit of increasing efficiency and any other factors tending to increase that net income. The farmers' representatives also agreed with us on the level at which these minimum guarantees should be fixed. In doing so, they recognised, as I am sure your Lordships have, that there must be room for the Government to discourage expansion of particular products if output is in excess of marketing needs, while perhaps encouraging the production of others.
I should like to direct your Lordships' attention, however, to one way in which the two aspects of our long-term assurances act upon each other. For any individual commodity we may reduce the guaranteed price in any year to 96 per cent. of its level in the previous year—the 4 per cent. which the noble Viscount mentioned. Assuming, however, that there have been no cost decreases since the last annual Review, we cannot make this reduction for all commodities, because we are bound to maintain the total value of the commodities and production grants at 97½ per cent. of their value in the current year. There can be no doubt that these assurances together represent a very real limitation on any action that the Government would take on an annual Review, and should be a real source of confidence to the industry as a whole.
My Lords, the time is now approaching for the next set of annual discussions with

333
the farmers' representatives. It would be improper for me to speculate to-day on the possible outcome of these discussions or to enlarge on the problems which are bound to be raised, although I am going to do my best in a moment to answer the questions that the noble Viscount put.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On the general question, may I say that I am much obliged for the detail of the reply; in fact, I must congratulate the noble Lord on the obvious joint Treasury and Ministry of Agriculture phraseology of the reply. But when you come to consider these annual Reviews and the special circumstances, could we be assured, having regard, for example, to our difficulties in beef and in milk, that all the relevant circumstances will be taken into account? If you are losing money on milk to a great extent, because of the degree to which it is going into manufacture, will you take into account the fact that at the moment the New Zealand farmer gets 357s. for his butter while the present market price of New Zealand butter in London is 262s.? The same point applies with regard to Argentine beef. If you are going to deal entirely with internal cases and not take into consideration these other relevant factors, you may depress further and further ahead the whole situation of the farmer. I am anxious to know that these things are going to be taken into account.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am fortunately able to make the answer quite short—namely, Yes; all relevant factors will be taken into consideration. I was going on to another point that the noble Viscount made, but before doing so I want to repeat and make perfectly clear that, although the new legislation on long-term assurances could not possibly be brought into operation in time for this year's annual Review, nevertheless the Government will regard themselves as bound by these undertakings at the Review.
The noble Viscount expressed some uneasiness on the subject he has just mentioned—that all increases in costs experienced by farmers will be taken into account in calculating the minimum total of the guarantees. He mentioned particularly the question of fuel. As I have said, cost increases will be calculated for this purpose in the same way as they have
334
been calculated for annual Reviews in the past. They will, of course, relate to the cost of production of the guaranteed commodities and not all agricultural commodities. The wide range of items that are taken into consideration may, I think, more conveniently be seen from the table which is attached to the White Paper that was issued after the last annual Review. Of course, these items would include fuel.
The noble Viscount then asked a question on the subject of the price of wheat. He asked whether the price of wheat for the 1957 harvest will be increased to bring it within 4 per cent. of that for 1956. I think that was the gist of the noble Viscount's question. The answer is, Yes. The Government have said that at the 1957 Review they will observe the assurances that they have given. They will, therefore, have to look again at the prices for crops at the 1957 harvest; and the price of wheat, and incidentally the price of rye also, will have to be increased to at least 96 per cent. of the price in 1956. I think that answers the noble Viscount's question.
The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, mentioned the point about doing work on one's own farm and the difficulty of extracting the costs from one's records in order to prove them to the Ministry. I should like to say, quite briefly, that the Ministry is now engaged in working out a simplified procedure which will make it easier for the farmer to extract his costs. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, was one of the first noble Lords to mention credit. He had some worries in regard to that matter, as had several other noble Lords. As was said in the White Paper, the Government have obtained an assurance from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, the Scottish Agricultural Security Corporation and the Lands Improvement Company, that in general no credit-worthy owner may expect to find it difficult to raise a loan at current interest rates to cover the major part, if not all, of his share in the cost of an approved scheme. There are similar facilities under a scheme for agricultural development loans administered by the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. With the undertakings given by these institutions, I think there ought not to be any reasonable cause to fear that a shortage of long-term credit will obstruct the progress of sound schemes.

335
Apart from the credit institutions, a good deal of finance is, I think, provided privately by local people—landlords, to a certain extent. Although I have no figures available, there is good reason to feel that private mortgages account for quite a high proportion of credit available to owners, and I should like just to mention that the grants we are talking about are themselves, in effect, a rather cheaper form of credit, in that an owner who is to put up a barn, shall we say, in having to pay interest on only two-thirds of the cost of it, is in fact obtaining the full value and paying only the interest on two-thirds, which has the secondary effect of reducing the interest rate to him.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Is it not a fact that he would be losing in other directions the interest on the one-third that he would provide himself?
LORD CHESHAM: Did the noble Lord say on one-third?
LORD WISE: Yes; he would in fact be losing interest on one-third of his capital which he would be providing from another source.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think the noble Lord means two-thirds.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that was what puzzled me. I could not make out how a man could lose the interest on one-third when it was being provided for him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I put it in this way? It is usually recognised that if one has a certain amount of capital out at interest and decides to put it into a venture as a new investment, in order to get some help from another quarter, until that new venture begins to pay, one is losing the current interest that one would have had on (in this case) the two-thirds capital invested in something else.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I certainly would not accept the argument that many people are going to find two-thirds of the cost of a capital project merely in order to get one-third off the Government just because it is available—which is rather what the noble Viscount implied. I should have thought that if a man was going to spend money on a barn he would presumably be satisfied
336
that that course would pay him better than leaving the money out at interest. Exactly the same thing applies to the grant.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the man sacrifices the immediately-invested interest and invests as a whole, in the hope that his investment in that will bring him back a better return.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not know, but perhaps the noble Viscount would care to continue that discussion outside your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should not mind doing so, under Lonsdale Rules.
LORD CHESHAM: The final point I wanted to make on the subject of credit was to those noble Lords who have advocated the idea of some national credit institution. I can say that ideas on these lines are being examined by my right honourable friend at the present time, with the National Farmers' Union. My noble friend Lord Forbes, who unfortunately has had to leave, had many points to make on the subject of planning, and I readily agree with him that we must take steps to see that the improvements for which the grants are payable are sound, properly planned and up to date. I had hoped that what was said by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn would show that we mean to do this.
Probably the main brunt of the advisory work will fall on the Agricultural Land Service, although no doubt there will be owners who will continue to rely on their own resources where these are available. The Agricultural Land Service are fairly well equipped to meet these requirements. They have always been able to devote a large share of their time to technical building problems and economic aspects of land management. They include among their members a specialised group of officers, farm buildings advisory officers, who can act also as consultants when the work is not so straightforward. A great deal has been and is being done through the publication of leaflets and bulletins to make available to owners the best modern practice in regard to farm buildings, and I feel sure that many owners will have no difficulty in getting from official publications the answers to all their first questions; and when the time comes to go

337
more deeply into the matter the advisers will be available.
The noble Lord doubtless knows of the Agricultural Improvement Council, which is responsible for keeping under review the process of research investigation into agricultural problems and costs, and that the results are disseminated as widely as possible. The Agricultural Improvement Council has a Land Management Committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland, which is charged with the special task of covering estate management problems. It is implied in this Committee's terms of reference that it has a general responsibility for seeing that the advisory work of the Agricultural Land Service is effective; and the Committee is important agent for ensuring that any inadequacies of the system for disseminating information are remedied. On the subject of research, the noble Lord also knows, I think, that we are in process of setting up a standing inter-departmental committee to review the work in this sphere, which is already in progress, and to make suggestions for additional subjects for inquiry. I hope that this committee will be meeting early next month.
As matters stand at present, we are inclined to think that the best way to make progress with farm building and research is to press on with, and expand, the work which is being done at the various institutions, rather than, as the noble Lord suggests, setting up a central research establishment specialising in this particular sphere. I do not, however, rule out the possibility of setting up such an establishment, or establishments, at some time in the future, and the noble Lord's suggestion will certainly be borne in mind.
My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire inquired when the Bill was likely to appear. Quite briefly, I can say, "As soon as practicable." Its progress will no doubt be subject to the exigencies of Parliament, but the intention is to have it quite soon. The noble Earl also asked me whether grants would apply for such buildings as grain stores. I am glad he did so, because he has put his finger on one of the most fundamental aspects of an efficient agriculture. The answer is: Yes; in certain circumstances they will. The stores must, of course, satisfy the test which my noble friend has already
338
described. There is a wide variety of grain stores, from massive permanent installations to others which are at least transportable, if not actually portable; but the main thing is that the grant will apply in certain cases to be judged on the conditions which my noble friend has described.
The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire and also the noble Lord, Lord Wise, inquired about top and bottom limits to the grant. It is intended that schemes costing less than £100 should not be accepted, but I do not think this will cause a great deal of hardship, for not very much will be excluded by that restriction. There cannot be many long-term improvement schemes that will cost less than that sum. At the other end, there is no intention of imposing an actual maximum limit to avoid substantial payments to individuals. If the work is worth doing, and completely satisfies the various conditions of the Bill, it will be accepted for a grant, whatever the cost; but naturally there will be practical considerations—for example, the amount that can reasonably be spent on the improvement of a particular holding. In any case, the test of the action that a prudent landowner would reasonably take could also be held to work equally well in preventing cases of excessive expenditure.
The noble Lord also asked me about water supplies. The Bill will not deal with existing grants for water supplies. The water supply grant of 25 per cent. is not comparable—at least not directly comparable—to the 33⅓ per cent. grant, The water supply grant is paid already at two rates: 40 per cent., when water comes from a private source, and 25 per cent., when it comes from a public source. In the latter case, the apparently low rate of grant is lather deceptive, because it leaves out of account the direct Exchequer assistance which is given to the water undertakers for mains extensions in rural areas.
Lord Wise asked about cows going to France. I will quickly answer his question. Those cows which go to France are of low grade and not acceptable to the market here, while Argentine beef which is imported is of higher grade and, therefore, acceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, inquired about electric motors and he answered his own question. He said that they would definitely not be included; and he was right.

339
He also raised a point about the silage grant, asking whether it should not be amalgamated. The grant will be available very soon—in fact, approval of schemes can be obtained now. If it were amalgamated it would be delayed by having to wait for the rest of the necessary legislation. Lord Bathurst mentioned foot-and-mouth disease, and I assure him that that problem remains very much in the forefront of all our minds.
To your Lordships, as a whole, I would say that I am quite sure that the House fully appreciates the deep significance of the developments in Government policy which we have been discussing to-day. The progress made by the industry has already been great. I believe that an even greater future lies ahead if the industry can realise the possibilities inherent in our steadily increasing technical knowledge. All this depends upon the confidence and energy of the individual farmer and landowner. The grounds for confidence which we have provided should enable them to get on with the job, without constantly looking over their shoulders; and the extra money we are providing for farm improvements should enable them to have the tools with which to get on with the job.
7.44 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for the full reply which he has given to this debate. I think he has covered almost all the questions which have been raised. I would also thank the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, for the full statement he made on the capital grants; it will certainly be most helpful to everyone. Then I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, on his well-informed maiden speech, and to express my gratitude to those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate and the hope that the House will accept this Resolution.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.

  GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS
  GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS
  JAPANESE WAR CRIMINALS
  JAPANESE WAR CRIMINALS