Sitting of 31 March 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th March.]
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  Clause 1.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER.)
  Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 5, after "murder" insert:
  "except a person previously convicted of murder who shall murder again ".—[Mr. Scott- Hopkins.]
  Question against proposed. That those words be there inserted.
  10.35 a.m.
  Sir Stephen McAddenIt will be within the recollection of the Committee that at our last sitting my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke strongly in support of the Amendments. Their arguments were fortified by speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who, although they were professed abolitionists, nevertheless thought that serious consideration should be given to the Amendments.
  Last week, we had the opportunity of hearing the views of the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), and the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, who was in charge of the Government's exposition of the case.
  1572
  Both urged rejection of the Amendments and that consideration given to them should be fairly short because they felt that they were at variance with a principle which, they maintained, the House had established on Second Reading. The views advanced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne were not necessarily the reasons which he gave for a majority decision being taken on the Bill. He gave one reason which, I suppose, enjoys wide acceptance, namely, that there was objection to what he called the beastly ritual of the death penalty. Then he went on to argue that the fact that a majority decision had been taken by the House more or less settled the issue.
  I am sure that it is not the generally held view of hon. Members that a majority decision, once taken, is for ever binding on us. Nor would it seem to be reasonable to advance that as the main argument for the rejection of these Amendments. It is not unknown for majority decisions to be resisted and eventually overcome. Many hon. Members opposite will remember a majority decision which was taken in a different context. Very rightly, those who were aggrieved by it decided to fight, fight and fight again and eventually the decision was reversed. Therefore, majority decisions are not necessarily binding. Nevertheless, consideration obviously must be given to whether this argument by itself is the only one which can be adduced in rebuttal of the very persuasive arguments advanced by my colleagues.
  I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne two main trends of argument in rebuttal of the Amendments, apart altogether from the general principle. He argued that, on the whole, murderers, once caught, were well behaved. I do not find this remarkable. If a man has been convicted of murder, and has been lucky enough to escape the death penalty, I should think that he would be very well behaved for the rest of his life as long as he was under supervision in gaol, because he would realise that his only chance of entering into a free life again would be to be on his very best behaviour once we had succeeded in catching him when committing his first crime of violence. I therefore do not find this surprising.
  Then the hon. Gentleman went on to argue that it would be wrong to draw a

  1573
  distinction, as the Amendment seeks to do, between a murderer committing a second murder and somebody who previously had never committed one but who committed one within the terms of the Amendment. That is an ingenious and interesting argument.
  If I understood the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne correctly, he argued that murders were not committed by professional criminals and that although professional criminals have gone in for crimes of violence and bestiality, which naturally arouse indignation, they have not so far committed murder. I wonder whether, in the hon. Member's argument, it would be wrong to draw a distinction between the punishment of a murderer and the punishment of a violent criminal committing his first murder. What has given the hon. Member reason to doubt that professional criminals will depart from their accepted practice of the past? Does the hon. Member now feel that, if the Bill goes through, professional criminals who hitherto have kept away from murder will be encouraged by the Bill, knowing that the penalty will not be much different whether they commit murder or not, to extend their violence to murder? If that is what the hon. Member feels, he should be able to give considerably more support to my hon. Friend's Amendment than has so far been the case.
  It seems obvious from the hon. Member's argument that although violent criminals have always, or nearly always, stopped short of murder, his anxiety that they should not be unfairly treated, or treated advantageously, as a result of the Amendments seems to presuppose the fact that they may well change their habits in the future. This is one reason why hon. Members on this side, even those who are in favour of abolition, see an argument in recognising that if the Bill were to be passed unamended, it would result in an entirely different position from that which now obtains and that murderers who may in the past have been restrained from activities which we would all deplore, and violent criminals who have kept away from murder, might well be persuaded to enter this field knowing that the punishment will not be very serious.
  Last week, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said:
  1574
  "Most murders are not committed by people with any previous record of crime at all, still less of violent crime. We are dealing with a group of people, as a class, who, individual by individual, have found themselves in circumstances which have compelled them to commit the greatest crime of all but who are in other respects people who have lived law abiding lives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 508.]
  It is because this is the greatest crime of all that so much feeling is felt on this side of the Committee among a large number of hon. Members that we should be extremely circumspect in the way in which we deal with it. We want to be sure that the penalties which are to prevail in the future for this worst crime of all will not be whittled away without some kind of safeguards being provided.
  Surely we are right in taking the view that, although it may be argued that the existing law on murder has resulted in the creation of a large number of anomalies, with which the Committee might well wish to deal, we must be quite certain that we do not create even more anomalies by making murder a more attractive trade than it now is. That is why this reasonable and sensible Amendment of ours has been moved to ensure that if the House of Commons, in its wisdom—if it is its wisdom—has decided to remove the death penalty for murder, nevertheless there should be provision for retaining within our code punishment for those who are guilty of a second murder.
  At a time like this, when hardly a week goes by without crimes of violence being committed every pay day, wage packets being snatched and people using firearms to pursue these crimes of violence, the Committee should be particularly careful not to resist Amendments which seek to inflict the capital penalty only for a second murder.
  During our discussion last week, the Minister of State, Home Office was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), who, I am sorry, is not in his place, who said to the hon. Lady:
  "I want to know, as a matter of practical policy, what happens to a man who commits a second murder. Is he put back in prison only to be released again after a while? Do we let him out to commit a third murder?"
  That seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable question to ascertain what was envisaged. I am sorry to say that

  1575
  the hon. Lady, who is always charming and usually helpful in these matters, replied:
  "I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is asking what has happened in the past or what would happen in future under the Bill. But if it is the latter case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make his contribution when we come to later Amendments." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 508, 527.]
  10.45 a.m.
  That did not seem to me to be the kind of information which my hon. Friend wanted. He wanted to know from the Government what were their ideas on the subject. One would have thought that somewhere in the hon. Lady's speech we might have had her views upon it. It is true that she went on to talk about how violent prisoners would be dealt with in future and said that a maximum security prison would be constructed in the Isle of Wight. That, of course, was some consolation, but the hon. Lady went on to say that it would not be ready for some years yet. I, with my simple mind, would have thought it much better to have got that maximum security prison actually constructed, and to have a period in which we saw how it worked and whether it was effective, before we eased the path of those who have a record of violence and who might to incited to commit murder if the Amendment is rejected.
  In recent weeks, we have had experience of people breaking into prison to release violent criminals. I am sure that if in the course of that breaking-in they found themselves resisted, after the passage of the Bill in its unamended form, it is extremely likely that the methods which they would use to break into gaol and to release known convicts, criminals and murderers would be much worse than anything we have experienced so far.
  Therefore, at a time such as this, when drugs are being so widely used by so many young people and by so many middle-aged and violent criminals, when every day we see the tactics of the strong-arm man being used in their most violent form, we should seriously consider restricting as far as possible all the incentives which now exist for people to commit murder.
  1576
  While I am encouraged at the slow realisation which has dawned even upon the promoter of the Bill that its passage may well result in violent criminals departing from their well-known habits and that, having kept away from murder in the past, they may be persuaded to go in for it in future, that is an additional argument in support of my hon. Friend's Amendments. I very much hope that they will receive the earnest and sincere consideration of hon. Members who, as I said last week, for reasons best known to themselves, do not seem to represent public opinion.
  When we have the extraordinary position that the whole of the party opposite, except one, is in favour of the Bill, I am not surprised if some hon. Members on this side are disappointed in that kind of reflection of public opinion, which, honestly, I cannot understand. I hope that the Home Secretary may be able to tell us what is this strange compelling thing that unites people, who from time to time are inclined to be contentious with each other on all kinds of other matters, to the extent that they have all come down on the same point of view with regard to capital punishment and have shown themselves to be completely out of touch with what is going on in the country.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): When the Committee met last time I was challenged by an hon. Member, if I use his words correctly, to come out in the open. I am not conscious that I have concealed my views about this matter, but if I have not made them specifically plain let me try to remedy that defect.
  I have listened to and read very carefully the speeches which have been addressed to the Committee in support of the Amendment. It seems to me that although the arguments were differently expressed, they had, broadly speaking, one common feature, and that was an anxiety about whether society would be properly protected from the violent criminal if the death penalty was abolished. It was differently put, but it seemed to me that that was the common feature of the arguments addressed to the Committee, and it may, I think will, be said that perhaps there has been some misconception amongst the public as to what is

  1577
  likely to happen to murderers, and, in particular, to the most violent and evil-minded type of murderer if the death penalty is abolished.
  If I have been in any way responsible for that misconception, I am sorry, and I must try to remove it. I have read again the speech that I made during the Second Reading of the Bill. I then carefully chose my words, and I hope that nothing that I then said was responsible for that misconception, but whether it was, or whether it was not, may I now try to remove it and say how, so long as I hold this office, I will think it my duty to try to exercise my discretion in dealing with prisoners who fall within the province of Section 27 of the Prisons Act, 1952, namely, those prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, and with regard to whom the Home Secretary has a discretion as to how long he will cause them to remain in prison.
  May I go back to the beginning. In my speech, which I have reconsidered, and from which I do not think I would desire to resile in any way, I did at the outset make it plain that in my opinion the first duty, and the first necessity, was to protect society. That must come first. That must displace every other consideration, and it seems to me that it is the bounden duty of the Home Secretary of the day to see to it however he exercises his discretion that fundamental principle is safeguarded. I adhere to that, and, so long as I hold this office, in any decision that I make with regard to Section 27 of the Act, I will certainly put that first and foremost as the criterion by reference to which I exercise my discretion.
  Having said that, within the limits of that exercise of discretion, obviously in individual cases there will arise a number of alternatives. In each case one has to weigh up the individual and try to consider, having regard to his character, his characteristics, his propensities, the likely effect on him of prolonged imprisonment, the possibility of returning him in due course to society as a useful, and may I add safe, member of society, what is appropriate in his case. I know that the Committee would agree with me about that; indeed, that is what the Statute, by implication at any rate, says.
  1578
  I know, also, that whatever view right hon. and hon. Members take with regard to the Amendment they will all be agreed on this, that in this great country of ours we should endeavour always when it is possible to take the humane, and, I will not say kindly, but human, attitude, as distinct from an attitude which involves any unnecessary cruelty to any individual, however bestial he may be. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree upon that. Therefore, in exercising a discretion, one has to try to reconcile those general principles, always bearing in mind what is the first and foremost of them.
  I then went on to say this, and I would, if I may, venture to inflict it on the Committee again:
  "One may have to deal with a sex murderer."
  I simply took that as an example. My own view of a person who, for example, murders a child in a sexual outbreak is a person who, unless there is some extremely marked change which can be clearly diagnosed in him, is extremely dangerous to society, and one would have to consider very carefully before one ever let a man like that out again. I do not want to strike dismay into the mind of any persons whom that may affect who are at present in custody, but I must say that.
  I went on to say:
  "One may have to deal with a murderer who, obviously, has inherent vicious propensities and of whom one has to say to oneself, albeit reluctantly, 'This man will aways be a danger and menace to society'. A man like that must be kept in confinement for a very long time—maybe even for the whole of his life, though that would be a conclusion which I know any Home Secretary would be most reluctant to reach."
  I say "any Home Secretary", but I feel that any hon. Member of the Committee would be reluctant to reach that conclusion.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be certain instances in which a prisoner will be kept in prison for the term of his natural life, and that in no circumstances whatever will he be allowed to leave prison? I say that for one reason because, as was mentioned last week, Peter Dunford is a prisoner who has committed murder twice. I do not wish the

  1579
  Home Secretary to comment on this case, but it is clear that my vote on the Third Reading of the Bill will depend on the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving us an assurance that in certain cases there will be an absolute necessity to keep a man in prison for the term of his natural life.
  Sir F. Soskice: I read what I said on Second Reading, which I meant, and still mean. I was talking about the man who was a permanent menace to society and I said that he
  "must be kept in confinement for a very long time—maybe even for the whole of his life, though that would be a conclusion which I know any Home Secretary would be most reluctant to reach."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 927.]
  I say "any Home Secretary" but I include, and I feel the completest confidence in including, every hon. Member present in this Committee, every hon. Member who is not present, and the vast majority of the public.
  The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) mentioned a prisoner. I hope that anything that I say today will not be thought by that prisoner, or by anybody who is concerned with him, to involve any conclusion with regard to his case. It depends on his future development. It would be terrible if anything said during this debate led any prisoner, any human being who is in custody, the responsibility for which at present devolves on me, to say to himself, "I have no hope of every regaining my future". It would be dreadful to say that.
  Mr. Hordern: I was at great pains to make the point that the case I mentioned was not one on which I wanted a judgment. We are not sitting here as judge and jury.
  Sir F. Soskice: The hon. Gentleman made that point. When I say that there may be cases—I hope very few—in which an extreme course of that sort will be the only course which can be adopted to protect society, it will have to be done. Everybody responsible will hate doing it. If it were my responsibility, I would take such a course with extreme reluctance and dislike. As what I say may be read by the prison population, I emphasise that what I say is not intended to apply to any person at present in prison.
  1580
  11.0 a.m.
  The case of each prisoner will be considered from time to time, as it is at present. So far as I am concerned, I shall examine most carefully the reports made on him and I would not wish it to go out from this Committee to the mind of any prisoner at present in custody that he has no hope. I am bound to say that some prisoners must realise that they have less hope. When my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) said that a great many persons who have committed murder are, shall I say, not necessary inherently evil, I think that the whole Committee would agree. A man may murder under the influence of sudden, almost uncontrollable, outbreak of jealousy, or fury. He may be a man of perfectly unblemished reputation until that time. He might be a man who has been subjected to years of domestic strain or to other misfortune. A man of that sort who suddenly gives way to such an uncontrollable outbreak has committed a terrible crime. It is the worst crime in the calendar.
  Nevertheless, not only the courts, but the public and this House, would say that they would view a man of that sort in a much more indulgent light than the type of murderer referred to by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern)—the vicious, violent man who has no pity for man or beast and who will slay to promote his own ends. That is an entirely different person, and the whole point of Section 27 of the 1952 Act is to impose on the Secretary of State the duty of trying to distinguish between cases.
  I know that we would all regard as the objective which we wish to try to accomplish to send people back, whatever their offence when it can be done consistently with the safety of society, to their friends and to their family to lead the rest of their lives as useful citizens in the community. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has pointed out that in a great many cases that happens now. One of my responsibilities is to study cases individually with regard to whom a question mark arises, "Should you let them out or should you not?" The night before last the House discussed an individual case. I had a difficult discretion to exercise then and many people think that I exercised my discretion wrongly. I feel

  1581
  that it was perfectly right and I greatly hope that the result in that case may be that a citizen is regained for the the community.
  When I express these views, and those who are like-minded with me express views of the sort that I am expressing, it does not mean to say that we think that the crime of murder is the sort of crime which could be glossed over. It is still the most terrible crime in the calendar, knowingly and purposefully to take away life from another human being. Of course it is.
  May I digress to say this? Sometimes language is used, I think a little incautiously, by hon. Members engaged in this Committee, in a controversy which would seem to imply that nine years or 10 years is—I do not wish myself to exaggerate, as the language seems to suggest—something very light, something which any would-be criminal could contemplate with complete equanimity.
  I hope that hon. Members will re-think that language. Nine or 10 years is a terrible punishment. In my respectful submission, to think that a person who is minded to commit an act of violence which may have a fatal conclusion will say to himself, "I have only nine or 10 years to be frightened of", is unrealistic. It is a terrible penalty in itself. It becomes more and more terrible when nine or 10 years may be 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 years.
  There may even be cases where people lose all hope of ever coming out of prison and it becomes more terrible. I ask the Committee not to take the view that nine or 10 years is—I do not wish to use exaggerated language—something which anybody may contemplate without being frightened of it. It is a terrible thing in itself.
  Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, quite apart from the crime of murder, there are, as we can see every single day, a tremendous number of the criminal population who, quite frankly, undertake a crime for which they know the penalty in their case would be imprisonment for nine or 10 years, and it does not have the slightest effect upon them?
  Sir F. Soskice: I have always thought that the real, shall I say, defect in our
  1582
  arrangements is not that our penalties are not sufficiently severe, but that the person who is minded to commit a crime thinks to himself, "I shall escape. I shall get away with it." My own view is that if we had penalties which were even considerably less than those habitually inflicted by the courts now, if there was a much higher likelihood of conviction, a virtual certainty of apprehension, the level of crime would drop tremendously.
  Since I have had my present responsibility I have concentrated a very large amount of my thinking and endeavour to trying to put the police in a better position to combat crime. The Committee knows that if one looks, for example, at the question of firearms—
  The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must link his remarks to the two Amendments which the Committee is considering and which relate to the question of double murder.
  Sir F. Soskice: I will certainly do so, Dr. King.
  The relevance, such as it is, of my speech, consisted, I hope, in this, that I think that the anxiety, as I pointed out at the outset of my remarks, of a number of hon. Members who support the Amendment is that if one does not retain the extreme penalty in some cases society will be insufficiently protected. What I was endeavouring to assure the Committee about was that the punishment will, nevertheless, be very severe, and that it is quite wrong to think that the punishment will be only nine or 10 years' imprisonment. That is the relevance of it and I hope that you will think that is within order.
  May I reinforce that remark again in an endeavour to remove public misconception which exists and remind the Committee that when one talks about persons being let out after nine or 10 years' imprisonment, generally they are persons who have been sentenced to death and reprieved. They have been reprieved because it was thought that in their cases there was a mitigating factor. It certainly does not follow at all that persons who have been sentenced to life imprisonment, with regard to whom

  1583
  it is impossible to point to any mitigating factor, can have any expectation that they will meet with the same treatment or that they have only to consider the possibility of a term of nine or 10 years. Therefore, I hope that it will not be thought that nine or 10 years is anything like automatic. It is not. Penalties may be considerably longer.
  Sir S. McAdden: I have been trying to follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—which has been put courteously and clearly as is always the case—on the queston of a person who commits a crime of violence and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine or 10 years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, as I understood it, that a criminal is buoyed up by the hope that he will never be caught. Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman also admit that if the Bill, as drafted, becomes law, and a person knows that the penalty for trying to resist arrest if he shoots someone will be no worse than if he does not, he will be encouraged to commit violence?
  Sir F. Soskice: With respect, I cannot accept that. I just do not believe that it is the case. I think that if a person was trying to resist arrest, and knew that the game was up and he was going to be caught, if he thought he was going to be sentenced to a fairly short term of imprisonment it would be a very great deterrent to him. The difficulty is that people think that they will get away with it.
  In view of the volume of crime as it is at the moment, they have—I do not want to exaggerate—more ground to hope that they will escape. That is why I think that my prime duty is to see to it that that possibility is reduced to the absolute bare minimum. That is what I have been trying to do.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Is not the position slightly worse even than my hon. Friend suggested? If the potential criminal is faced with circumstances in which apprehension seems inevitable and he knows that his only chance of escaping is to take some action which will result in murder, would not his temptation, as my hon. Friend implied, be all the greater?
  Sir F. Soskice: Looking at it from the point of view of the criminal, if he knows that his offence will be detected and will inevitably result in his being imprisoned—because the likelihood of his being apprehended is so strong that he has practically no chance of escape—that person is far more likely to say, "I cannot get away with it. Better not aggravate it by shooting my way out as well." His temptation would be—
  Mr. William Yates: This is absolutely the fundamental point for those like myself who, for a long time, supported the abolitionists' case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is advancing the proposition that the greatest deterrent is police detection. Now we have a situation in which we are not certain that the detection is good enough. Secondly, if such a man is caught, the tendency will be, as in the last few months, to use a firearm—that is the way the criminal mind works—to avoid being caught.
  Sir F. Soskice: I think exactly the opposite. If the likelihood of being caught is extremely high—
  Mr. Yates: It is not at the moment.
  Sir F. Soskice: That is why I am trying to improve it. I am trying to increase the likelihood and that is what I have been arguing, that the endeavour of the Government and my own endeavour will be to try to increase that likelihood and put the police in a better and better position. Suppose that I achieve a modest degree of success. If one looks at it through the eyes of a criminal who knows that he is about to be caught, he would far sooner be caught for an offence for which he might be imprisoned for three years than for an offence for which he might be imprisoned for 10 or 12 years. Therefore, the likelihood of his trying to shoot his way out would be reduced proportionately as the chances of his being apprehended increase.
  Brigadier Terence Clarke: This relates to the question which I raised before, that of the prisoner who is doing a life sentence. I was told that he was doing it for raping a young girl. If he had murdered that young girl as well he could not have got more than

  1585
  a life sentence. He might just as well have murdered her; he could not have been worse treated.
  11.15 a.m.
  Sir F. Soskice: I deplore discussing individual cases. In that case, a person was sentenced to life imprisonment for rape of a young person. If there is any discussion about that individual, I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the court which sentenced him for that offence thought that the circumstances were such that they should impose the maximum possible sentence which could be imposed, that is to say, life imprisonment. I shall say no more about that case.
  I have tried to say what I thought was proper, if asked what my intentions would be and how I would exercise my discretion as long as I am responsible. On the other side of the Amendment, I would put the considerations which I would like the Committee to consider on the broad question. It has been said that if the Amendment is accepted it will be going against the general view which those hon. Members concerned expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  I would respectfully submit that this is a perfectly right argument and perfectly rightly put in that form. I would seek to reinforce that consideration in this way. When we were considering the Homicide Act, we were trying to do exactly the same thing. We started from the general proposition that the death sentence was something which was—I do not want to use superlative adjectives—out of accord with modern thinking with regard to what penalties society should inflict. Some people have used very strong adjectives about it. I hold a very strong view about it and think that those adjectives are appropriate, but I shall not repeat them.
  What we did in 1957, in effect, was to pick out those types of murder of which it could be said that they were particularly dangerous to society or that they were, for some reason, types of murder which particularly call for the supreme penalty. That is what we were trying to do. I would submit that those who think that this Amendment ought to be introduced to the Bill are retracing precisely those steps. We did not succeed when we put the Homicide Act on
  1586
  the Statute Book, just because it is virtually impossible to make anything like a logical selection of the worst type of crime. Hon. Members say that this is the worst sort of situation—a man who, having been convicted of one murder, commits another.
  I would venture to challenge that. There may be cases of men murdering children in the course of rape. I cannot think of anything more terrible than that. A man who would do that is a person who deserves the worst sort of penalty which can be imposed upon him. One can go right around the whole panorama of possible murder and select all sorts of murderers who are worse, in individual cases, than the persons who commit two murders.
  A person who may commit two murders is, perhaps, mentally ill-adjusted, whereas another person may murder as a result of a long course of blackmail, by poisoning or something of the sort. An impartial observer would say that the murderer who murders in the course of poisoning or blackmail or rape has done something much more offensive and abhorrent to the conscience of the public than the person who, in an individual case, may have committed two murders.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not misinterpret our attitude towards the Amendment. I am not talking in terms of whether it is a particularly horrible murder or not, but about the whole question of deterrents. If a man has been in prison for a long time and murders a second time while he is in prison, or when he comes out, it is not a question of the horrific nature of the murder. It has been shown that the normal form of deterrent in the form of prisons is not effective, and one has to go back to another form of deterrent which may operate.
  Sir F. Soskice: What the Royal Commission said, in effect, was that one cannot draw anything like safe conclusions from experience. I would submit that this is a basic point, that if we try to single out cases which ought to be excepted from the general rule of abolition for various reasons, because they need a particularly severe deterrent, a terrifying punishment, because they are particularly anti-social for some reason

  1587
  difficult to discover, because their commission involves a particularly heinous attitude of mind, or because it means that the murder must have been planned and executed over a long period in utter disregard of any sense of pity for other human beings, I would put it to the Committee that it is absolutely impossible—as we found when we were considering the Homicide Act of 1957—to work out any scheme which is not immediately open to the most obvious criticism and which is not immediately shown to produce the most obvious anomalies between one case and another.
  I therefore say to hon. Members that if they take the broad view that the penalty is abhorrent in itself, and if they felt that sufficiently strongly to be moved to support the Second Reading, then they ought to accept the conclusion that, short of this, one cannot find any way of singling out particular types of murder, even repetitious murders which one wants to keep within the purview of the death penalty. I ask that the Amendment be rejected.
  Sir John Hobson: I profoundly agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said in the debate last Wednesday—that the Bill and the problems which we face raise a detestable dilemma for every hon. Member. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) that the whole procedure of bringing about the hanging of a man through judicial processes and through the exercise of the sovereign powers of the State is utterly horrible and detestable. Everybody concerned with it at every stage must abhor it.
  But everybody who has ever been concerned with a murder, and has seen photographs of the victims, who knows the bestiality and brutality of the act, who has seen the havoc which can be created amongst the families and the friends of the victims, knows that when an innocent life has been cut off in its prime he equally detests and hates the act which has brought about such a crime.
  The only way in which any hon. Member can approach the problem, therefore, is by trying to ignore the emotions
  1588
  on either side which are raised by consideration either of the judicial processes or of the crime which has set them in motion and to try to consider, rationally and logically, as far as possible, what we are proposing by the Bill and what the results of the Bill must be—whether it is likely to do more harm or more good by accepting the principle of the Bill and deciding that not even this Amendment should be incorporated in it.
  In the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) stated a principle which I personally think sets the matter too high. He said:
  "… if I thought for a moment that the passage of the Bill … would lead to one additional murder, or would create conditions which would lead to additional murders, I would vote against it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 24th February, 1965; c. 188.]
  I do not think that that is right. If only one single murder were likely to happen as a result of the Bill, I should willingly accept the abolition of the death penalty. But if there is to be an increase in murders, if the result of the Bill will be that each year more innocent people will be done to death, then I think that the public are right in believing that the Bill and its principles are wrong. Therefore, the interests of hon. Members on this subject—both those who have always been retentionists and many who up to now have been abolitionists—is to see whether the effect of the Bill in the long term will be that the numbers of murders will be increased.
  We are grateful to the Home Secretary for the views which he expressed about the way in which he personally approaches the problem and in which he would exercise his powers if the Bill were passed. We do not doubt for one moment that on every occasion when the safety of the public and public order arose it would have first priority in his mind. But the anxiety of those who support the Amendment is that he is depriving himself of an essential weapon for the protection of the public and putting himself in an impossible dilemma of a conflict between penology and deterrence. They are two quite different subjects. The question of how we treat a man and what effect that treatment has on him is a wholly different question from whether we prevent people from

  1589
  committing murder. The point on which the public and hon. Members must form their judgment is whether the presence of the risk of being caught and hanged will prevent people from committing murder, and whether it has done so in the past.
  Nobody can estimate how many murders have been prevented by the existence of the death penalty. We must form our own opinion about that. What I fear, as do others who take the same view, is that by the removal of this supreme penalty we shall see an increase in the number of murders. It is, of course, true that punishment by imprisonment alone can be very severe and can have some deterrent effects, but we think that it will not have a sufficiently deterrent effect and that the result will be to increase the number of murders which will be committed hereafter.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: But that is not the issue—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: On what premise—
  The Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) must decide to which hon. Member he is giving way.
  Mr. Orme: On what premise does the right hon. Gentleman base the statement that the number of murders will increase? If he is using that argument he must give reasons for it and show that this has happened in other countries.
  Sir J. Hobson: I will confine myself to this country. The first fact on which I base the argument is that while crime has been steadily increasing in this country, particularly crimes of violence, those crimes which since 1957 have remained capital have not increased, and indeed in the last three years the number of such crimes which have always been capital are precisely the same as in the three years before 1957. That is not conclusive, because we are not trying to see how many crimes were committed but how many have not been committed and, as I have said before, this must be a matter of judgment.
  Having prosecuted, defended and otherwise appeared in a number of criminal cases, having been on the Home Secretary's Advisory Committee and on
  1590
  the Royal Commission for the Police, and from my own experience of the criminal classes and the way in which these murders are committed and in which criminal classes behave, I feel, as a matter of judgment—and it can be only a matter of judgment—that the result of the Bill is likely to be an increase in the number of murders because the deterrent is not there.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for a long time, and I hesitate to interrupt him, but surely he has not so far made an intervention which is not purely a Second Reading speech.
  The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) will allow the Chair to guide the Committee on points of order, but, frankly, I was about to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), as I invited the right hon. and learned Member who preceded him, to link his remarks to the Amendment.
  Sir J. Hobson: I appreciate the difficulty and I am sorry if I have gone too wide. But the Home Secretary made a very important pronouncement which he said was related to the general approach to the Amendment. It is difficult to consider this long series of Amendments without looking at the background. I am sorry if I have gone too wide. I will try to come to the Amendment.
  The particular problem in every case, whether it is second murders or other murders, is the factor between the chance of discovery and the result which follows. The Home Secretary is right in saying that if we could guarantee 100 per cent. discovery of every crime, in particular, of every murder and every second murder, we might be able to contemplate a reduction in the penalty for murder. But we all know that this is not the situation. When crime is increasing and detection is decreasing, that, surely, is not the time to reduce the deterrent effect of the punishment for those who are caught. I leave the generality because we could go on discussing the generality for a long time.

  1591
  There can be no more extreme case than the one dealt with in the Amendment, for it is the case of a man who has already been convicted, has already been sentenced and has already served one sentence of imprisonment and who, while either serving that sentence at the time commits a second murder, or, having been released after serving that sentence, commits a second murder. In those circumstances, he either murders a prison officer, or a fellow prisoner, or, if after his release, murders an unfortunate member of the public.
  11.30 a.m.
  On both murders he had no defence of insanity. He did not even have the defence of diminished responsibility and he could not show on either occasion that he had any abnormality of mind impairing his mental responsibility. In other words, he was a sane, deliberate double killer. No Home Secretary could, in such circumstances, release such a person except until his dotage. It would be a very heavy burden indeed for a Home Secretary to release such a person unless it was after a very, very long period indeed of that man's life; as I say, when he had almost reached his dotage.
  What we would be doing, therefore, in such a case would be preserving him so that he could rot for most of his life in prison. We must remember that in the meantime there would be substantial risk and danger to the prison officers who were looking after him and to his fellow prisoners who had to live with him. And what would happen if he murdered a third time? Suppose that the double murderer in custody—assuming that he had not been released—murdered a third time. The Bill would still leave him with his life, in custody, still able to commit a fourth murder. Because of this we say that the Measure does not face up to the problem of the determined killer who simply decides that he should kill a prison officer or fellow prisoner.
  Sir Charles Taylor: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend appreciates that such a thing could happen; for example that Christopher Simcox was convicted in 1948, was released in 1959, committed a second murder in 1964 and was sentenced to a second term of life im-
  1592
  prisonment. I should like to know what happens after that. Will he be released again?
  Sir J. Hobson: This, admittedly is a rare case. Admittedly, I am not suggesting that this will happen often, but Parliament is responsible for dealing with all cases. We must deal not only with the likely, but with the possible. If we are not to hang a murderer, however many times he commits murder, we arrive at the position when there is no deterrent and when the prison officers who look after him and the fellow prisoners who must live with him are left at substantial risk.
  We say in the Amendment that it is better to draw the line at the second murder. We want to ensure that a murderer, having been given one chance, will never be able to have another chance if he should be such a killer, such a determined, morose, violent man who embarks on a deliberate second murder.
  Mr. R. J. Paget: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not putting an argument for hanging the insane?
  Sir J. Hobson: With great respect, no. Maybe the man may become insane, and I agree that there is a narrow line between sanity and insanity, but nobody has ever suggested that those who are insane should be treated in any way other than by being kept throughout their lives in safe custody. The double killer is not insane. Very different problems arise.
  While people may have to take the risk of guarding and caring for the insane—and the insane can be treated in many ways nowadays—the deliberate killer who retains his sanity and chooses his occasion to kill presents a different problem for those who must keep him. I suggest that we should not put prison warders and prisoners at the risk of having to live with such a man.
  I will now deal with the arguments put forward at the outset by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. He began by saying that the matter had already been decided on Second Reading. That cannot be right. It means that this Committee stage is a complete waste of time. The matter goes deeper than that and we should consider each Amendment. I cannot see why,

  1593
  because, in general, the principle of the Bill has been approved, we should not consider individual cases.
  The hon. Member said, secondly, that the death penalty was not a deterrent. I have advanced my arguments on that and have pointed out that it must be, and cannot be other than, a matter of judgment. As to whether the existence of the death penalty prevents murders and has, in the past, prevented them from being committed, one cannot arrive at an answer either by looking at the details of the murders which have been committed, or the types of people who have committed them, because it is those who have not committed them whom we must consider.
  The hon. Member said, thirdly, that most murderers were of good character. [Interruption.] That is true. As the Home Secretary said, people have violent fits of passion and may be under great pressure—and who, perhaps through circumstances, their characters deteriorate and they commit murder but regret it bitterly from the moment they have re-established their control.
  I am bound to say that of all the criminal classes for whom I have appeared, some of the most charming have been murderers. However, I do not think that anybody claims that the double murderer could normally be described as agreeable. There are men who are violent, insubordinate, sullen, morose and utterly brutal creatures. It is necessary for us to realise that such people exist and to provide penalties which they understand and which are likely to deter them.
  The next argument used by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was that because some people commit violent crimes which do not amount to murder and are not hanged, therefore no murderer should be hanged. That seems to be a wholly illogical argument. It ignores the fact that throughout the centuries of history—since the Ten Commandments and even before—the crime of murder has been an exceptional and wholly different crime. We all know that the powers of survival of the human being are very great indeed and that without a gun it takes a great deal to kill a man. Someone not armed with a gun must be of great strength and deter-
  1594
  mination to achieve the death of a another. And with a gun he must mean to kill or certainly to come very near indeed to killing.
  The Minister of State made two principal points. The first was that there are very few known second murders. I entirely agree and, as I said, we must still recognise that there are some of them and that there may be more in future. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) who said that the category of prisoners in the care of prison officers will be in a significant and important respect altered for the worse as a result of the passage of the Bill. There will be a category of persons in prison who up till now have been hanged and who have not had to spend long years in the custody of prison officers. We should face up to the possibility of these events happening, and I submit that the proper way to deal with them is to accept the Amendment.
  The second point which the hon. Lady made was that one should look for examples overseas. I do not know about that, but certainly the avant garde frequently like looking behind the Iron Curtain. I understand that Russia has re-established the death penalty for a number of crimes, including black marketeering and burglary. I certainly would not want to draw any analogy with the society in Russia. The hon. Lady was very selective. She selected four countries only, three of them being Scandinavian and the other Holland. There are a lot of other countries in Europe and there is America, and the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment made it quite plain that it was unsafe to draw conclusions from the experience of other countries.
  Paragraph 64 of its Report states:
  "An initial difficulty is that it is almost impossible to draw valid comparisons between different countries. Any attempt to do so, except within very narrow limits, may always be misleading."
  It goes on to state that this arises because of
  "… differences in the legal definitions of crimes, in the practice of the prosecuting authorities and the courts, in the methods of compiling criminal statistics, in moral standards and customary behaviour, and in political, social and economic conditions, it is extremely difficult to compare like with like, and little confidence can be felt in the soundness of the inferences drawn from such comparisons."
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, having read that passage, that it is far more relevant to look at Scandinavian countries, with their democratic traditions, and it being agreed generally that they are more similar to us than other countries, than to start off that red herring about the Soviet Union?
  Sir J. Hobson: All I say is that we should not look at any of them or, if we are to look at any of them, we should look at all of them. I only say that the Royal Commission pointed out that it is not safe to rely on these comparisons, and that we should form our own judgment about conditions in this country.
  Mr. Christopher Chataway: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to be entirely fair here. The next sentence in that paragraph states:
  "An exception may legitimately be made where it is possible to find a small group of countries or States, preferably contiguous, and closely similar in composition of population and social and economic conditions generally, in some of which capital punishment has been abolished and in others not."
  On the basis of those comparisons, the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that capital punishment was, in general terms, a deterrent and, on the basis of that sentence, I think that there is probably something to be said for comparing our own situation in this respect with that of certain other European countries.
  Sir J. Hobson: If my hon. Friend reads on a little further he will see that the Royal Commission did not speak of European countries, but of New Zealand,
  Australia and the United States of America. Perhaps we had better not pursue that further, but had better look at our own community and society—
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): In the paragraph following that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted—paragraph 65—the Royal Commission says that it is more reliable to look at countries before and after abolition, and the paragraph ends by saying:
  "The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate, or that its reintroduction has led to a fall."
  Sir J. Hobson Sir J. Hobson rose—
  The Chairman: Order. From time to time we are drifting into a Second Reading debate on the Bill.
  Sir J. Hobson: I appreciate that, Dr. King, and I will not endeavour to deal further with this quotation of passages from the Royal Commission Report.
  I suggest that we should look at this Amendment in the circumstances of the criminal classes today, of the crimes statistics in this country, and of the risks there are that people will commit second murders. For that reason, I suggest that where we are dealing with the deliberate, sane, second murderer, we should retain the death penalty.
  Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 130.

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Redhead, Edward

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  English, Michael

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ensor, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rose, Paul B.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rowland, Christopher

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sheldon, Robert

  Floud, Bernard

  McBride, Neil

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N 'c' tle-on-Tyne, C.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McCann, J.

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Ford, Ben

  MacColl, James

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McGuire, Michael

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mclnnes, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Garrow, A.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Mackie, George Y. (C' ness & S' land)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Small, William

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Snow, Julian

  Grey, Charles

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Solomons, Henry

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Steel, D.

  Hale, Leslie

  Manuel, Archie

  Steele, Thomas

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mapp, Charles

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Marsh, Richard

  Stonehouse, John

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Stones, William

  Hannan, William

  Maxwell, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Harper, Joseph

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Symonds, J. B.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Monslow, Walter

  Thornton, Ernest

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

  Urwin, T. w.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Murray, Albert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Newens, Stan

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Horner, John

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wainwrignt, Edwin

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wallace, George

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Warbey, William

  Howie, W.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, Tudor

  Hoy, James

  Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Owen, Will

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Jackson. Colin

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Woof, Robert

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Zillacus, K.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  probert, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Randall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rankin, John

  Mr. R. T. Paget and Mr. Dick Taverne.

  NOES

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Eden, Sir John

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carthalton)

  Astor, John

  Buxton, R. C.

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Farr, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooke, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Cordle, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Forrest, George

  Bingham, R. M.

  Costaln, A. P.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Box, Donald

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Gammans, Lady

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Dance, James

  Gardner, Edward

  Braine, Bernard

  Dean, Paul

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. Sir Walter

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  1598

  1599

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maginnls, John E.

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stodart, Anthony

  Grant-Ferris R.

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Monro, Hector

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Teeling, Sir William

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Petar

  Hendry, Forbes

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Peyton, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hobson, Ht. Hn. Sir John

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Webster, David

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wise, A. R.

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wylie, N. R.

  Lagden Godfrey

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ridsdale, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacArthur, Ian

  Roots, William

  Mr. Scott-Hopkins and Sir Rolf Dudley Willams

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Question put accordingly:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 237.

  DIVISION No. 81.

  AYES

  11.45 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.w.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Albu, Austen

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Aldritt, Walter

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Darling, George

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Buchanan, Richard

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Barnett, Joel

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bence, Cyril

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Binns, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dell, Edmund

  Bishop, E. S.

  Chapman, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Blackburn, F.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Diamond, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Dodds, Norman

  Boston. T. G.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Doig, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Redhead, Edward

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  English, Michael

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ensor, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rose, Paul B.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rowland, Christopher

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sheldon, Robert

  Floud, Bernard

  McBride, Neil

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N 'c' tle-on-Tyne, C.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  McCann, J.

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Ford, Ben

  MacColl, James

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McGuire, Michael

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mclnnes, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Garrow, A.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Mackie, George Y. (C' ness & S' land)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Small, William

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  MacMillan, Malcolm

  Snow, Julian

  Grey, Charles

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Solomons, Henry

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Steel, D.

  Hale, Leslie

  Manuel, Archie

  Steele, Thomas

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mapp, Charles

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Marsh, Richard

  Stonehouse, John

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Stones, William

  Hannan, William

  Maxwell, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Harper, Joseph

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Symonds, J. B.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Monslow, Walter

  Thornton, Ernest

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

  Urwin, T. w.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Murray, Albert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Newens, Stan

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Horner, John

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wainwrignt, Edwin

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wallace, George

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Warbey, William

  Howie, W.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, Tudor

  Hoy, James

  Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Owen, Will

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Jackson. Colin

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Woof, Robert

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Zillacus, K.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  probert, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Randall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rankin, John

  Mr. R. T. Paget and Mr. Dick Taverne.

  NOES

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Eden, Sir John

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carthalton)

  Astor, John

  Buxton, R. C.

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Farr, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooke, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Cordle, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Forrest, George

  Bingham, R. M.

  Costaln, A. P.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Box, Donald

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Gammans, Lady

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Dance, James

  Gardner, Edward

  Braine, Bernard

  Dean, Paul

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. Sir Walter

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  1598

  1599

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maginnls, John E.

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stodart, Anthony

  Grant-Ferris R.

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Monro, Hector

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Teeling, Sir William

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Petar

  Hendry, Forbes

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Peyton, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hobson, Ht. Hn. Sir John

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Webster, David

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wise, A. R.

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wylie, N. R.

  Lagden Godfrey

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ridsdale, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacArthur, Ian

  Roots, William

  Mr. Scott-Hopkins and Sir Rolf Dudley Willams

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sinclair, Sir George

  DIVISION No.82.

  AYES

  11.55 a.m.

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Gardner, Edward

  Onslow, Cranley

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Astor, John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Percival, Ian

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Batsford, Brian

  Gower, Raymond

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Pym, Francis

  Bingham, R. M.

  Grieve, Percy

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Blaker, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Bossom Hn. Clive

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Box, Donald

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Braine, Bernard

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Roots, William

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Sharples, Richard

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hendry, Forbes

  Smiln Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Bullus Sir Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Buxton, R. C.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Stodart, Anthony

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Cooke, Robert

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Cordle, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Temple, John M.

  Dance, James

  Lambton, Viscount

  Thomas, lorweth (Rhondda, W.)

  Dean, Paul

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  MacArthur, Ian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  du cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Eden, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Webster, David

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Whitelaw, William

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Farr, John

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Wise, A. R.

  Fell, Anthony

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Mitchell, David

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Monro, Hector

  Younger, Hn. George

  Forrest, George

  More, jasper

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Garnmans, Lady

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Mr. Scott-Hopkins and Sir Rolf Dudley Williams.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Albu, Austen

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oswald, Thomas

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Owen, Will

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Padley, Walter

  Alldritt, W. H.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Paget, R. T.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Parkin, B. T.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Barnett, Joel

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bence, Cyril

  Horner, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Binns, John

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Peyton, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Blackburn, F.

  Howie, W.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hoy, James

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Boston, T. G.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Probert, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Randall, Harry

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Rankln, John

  Bowen, Rcderic (Cardigan)

  Hyna, H. (Accrington)

  Redhead, Edward

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Jackson, Colin

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Brown Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Brown, R. W. (shoredltch & Fbury)

  Johnson, carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rowland, Christopher

  Carter-Jones, Lewi

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Sheidon, Robert

  Castle, Rt. Ht. Barbara

  Jopling, Michael

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Kelley, Richard

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Chateway, Christopher

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kerr. Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kirk, P.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ledger, Ron

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Small, William

  Cullen, Mrs, Alice

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Snow, Julian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lipton, Marcus

  Solomons, Henry

  Darling, George

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Steele, Thomas

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stonehouse, John

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  McBride, Neil

  Stones, William

  Dell, Edmund

  McCann, J.

  Swain, Thomas

  Dempsey, James

  MacColl, James

  Swingler, Stephen

  Diamond, Jhon

  McGuire, Michael

  Symonds, J. B.

  Dodds, Norman

  Mclnnes, James

  Steel, D.

  Doig, Peter

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Mackle, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mackle, John (Enfield, E.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Dunn, James A.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Tinn, James

  English, Michael

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ensor, David

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Evans, Ioad (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Manuel, Archie

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mapp, Charles

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Marsh, Richard

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mason, Roy

  Wallace, George

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Warbey, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington, E.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Floud, Bernard

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitlock, William

  Millan- Bruce

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ford, Ben

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Garrett, W. E.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Garrow, A.

  Monslow, Walter

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Grey, Charles

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Murray, Albert

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Newens, Stan

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  woof, Robert

  Hale, Leslie

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip (Derby, S.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Ogden, Eric

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannan, William

  Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

  Mr. Dick Tarerne and Dr. David Keir.

  Harper, Joseph

  Orbach, Maurice

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr. A. P. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, after "murder", to insert:
  "except a person who murders a police officer acting in the execution of his duty".
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): It would be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 7, in line 5, after "murder", to insert:
  "except for any murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty or of a person assisting a police officer so acting".
  Mr. Costain: It has been customary throughout the debate for those hon. Members who move Amendments to give the Committee an indication of how they voted on Second Reading. I have to explain to the Committee that I had much heart-searching on how I should vote. The position was made much more difficult for me by reason of the fact that for many years I have been making long and frequent visits to Persia, a country where public hanging is still accepted as part of the normal way of things. During the course of these visits, I had the misfortune to be present in one or two villages when these public hangings took place and, naturally, I was very much distressed by what I saw.
  I therefore found it even more difficult to make a decision on this matter, but I finally voted against the Bill because I think it is the duty of the House and of Parliament to protect the victim rather than the murderer. I was extremely thankful that in this country public execution had been abandoned and, in criticising the Persians, I was fully conscious of the fact that it was not so many years ago that we had these spectacles ourselves. But my thoughts went most to the victims, and in moving the Amendment I am conscious of the fact that we are talking of a particularly vulnerable type of victim—a victim who is a servant of the House and of the Queen and who, in carrying out his duties, is taking an unusual risk.
  I thought that the Home Secretary, speaking on the previous Amendment, when your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, called him to order, was making a better case for this Amendment that I could possibly make, because he laid particular emphasis on the fact that imprisonment for nine years was a
  1604
  very serious punishment which most criminals would detest and would try to avoid at all costs. It is in this connection that I direct my argument. I believe that the criminal class in this country have now become a profession who will calculate the risk, very much like a businessman or, probably more appropriately, a gambler would calculate a risk. In calculating that risk, the criminal has regard to what will happen to him if he is caught. Part of his calculation must be his means of escape, and we expect and demand of our police force the carrying out of special duties in that connection. They are rather like firemen in a brigade who will always be nearest to the flames. I think it is the duty of the Home Secretary to give them special protection. This is the very matter to which my Amendment directs special attention.
  When a policeman is apprehending a criminal caught in an act of robbery, what does he say, and how might his approach be altered if the Amendment is not accepted? Incidentally, I do not believe that enough people in the House or in the country realise what sentences can be imposed under the Larceny Act. In the confrontation between policeman and robber, the policeman says, quite naturally, "Come along quietly", and the robber will be able to say,"What have I got to lose if I shoot you with the gun in my hand?" We shall be taking the last argument out of the policeman's mind, because he will no longer be able to say to the robber, "You have got your life to lose". The robber will know that he can be sentenced to nine, ten or, perhaps, more years of imprisonment.
  I do not call in aid the mail train robbery, and I do not wish to argue on that basis now because, for this purpose, I regard it as a special case. I am arguing from the standpoint of the ordinary habitual criminal who has probably been caught once or twice and convicted and who is again carrying on his business. He is the gambler who is looking to the "getting out" stakes, and I do not want the "getting out" stakes to be applied to the wife of one of our policemen.
  I have no doubt that it will be said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) that the number of policemen murdered could be

  1605
  counted on the fingers of two hands, or even less, but this is of no consequence in the argument at all. It is a national tragedy when one policeman is murdered. We have seen this only too recently. We have a sense of shame as a nation when such a thing happens. We know the tragedy for the families involved, we know the effect on the morale of the police themselves, many of whom are moved to feel more vindictive than we should like them to be. We know also that it puts an argument in the mouth of the criminal.
  I respect the views of the absolute abolitionists who believe that to hang a man at any time is wrong, but I reply that we are talking about one man's life against another. I am pleading not that we should hang the criminal but that we should save the life of a policeman and give him an argument by which he may save his life.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is a splendid debater, and he may well base an argument upon what happens in other countries, pointing out that violent crime did not increase there. But I remind the Committee that in many other countries the police are armed. If we do not accept the Amendment, the logical outcome will be that our police will eventually have to be armed. The police do not want to be armed. The public do not want them to be armed. But, ultimately, we shall face the danger of the Chicago gangster effect in Britain.
  I do not for a moment accept that I am exaggerating, but to those who may say that I am I reply that in countries comparable with ours policemen generally go about in pairs. In Britain, this is most unusual. The only time when policemen go about their beat in pairs is when a young constable is receiving instruction or when they know that they are likely to meet a gang of criminals. We are so short of police in this country that we cannot apprehend the present number of criminals. It is one of the nation's complaints against the House of Commons that we have not done enough to protect the public. If we now arrange, as a result of the Bill, that the police must go about in pairs, just in order to satisfy a doctrinaire policy, we shall further increase the criminal's chances of not being apprehended.
  1606
  I am glad that Amendment No. 7 is to be discussed at the same time, but I do not address myself to that at all except to say that I support it. I have an overwhelming case for acceptance of my Amendment for the protection of our police forces, and I do not want to give the sponsor of the Bill any opportunity to slide out of it. Indeed, if this Amendment is not accepted, I can see no other Amendment which will be accepted.
  12.15 p.m.
  This Amendment raises the issue on which we, as a House of Commons, must accept direct responsibility for the life of a civil servant, a servant whom we expect to undertake a difficult duty and to run exceptional risks. Unless we are prepared to give him this small support in the performance of his duties, we shall be asking him to do too much. If the Amendment is not accepted, it will not be for lack of strength in the case but for lack of ability in me to persuade the Committee of the urgent need to meet a very present danger. For the rest of my life, if a policeman is murdered, I shall feel in myself some responsibility.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: At any time of any day or night, in any town or village or part of our countryside, one can see a remarkable sight, a police constable patrolling along, unarmed, and with nothing but a whistle and a truncheon to protect himself. I am sure we all desire to see this feature of our life preserved. I sincerely believe, having regard to what little experience I have had, that unless the Bill incorporates a provision of this kind our hopes of preserving that feature of our life will become remote and may even pass away.
  The police officer is the shield, the only shield, standing between the general public and the criminal. He does his work out of an extraordinarily keen sense of duty and high integrity and a degree of courage which we should never cease to acknowledge. The majority of policemen believe that when they do their duty in this way they are protected from violent assault and even from the criminal killer because, at present, the death penalty stands between them and the perils which they otherwise would face. The Committee would be doing a grave disservice to our police forces if it

  1607
  were lightly to accept that the police could still perform their duties without the protection of the death penalty in the safety which they feel today.
  Let us, for the sake of the argument, take it that the average spell of life imprisonment is nine to ten years—although I am not content that it should be taken as nine to ten years. I find the contention that the prospect simply of nine to ten years' imprisonment is a sufficient substitute to take the place of the death penalty a very disturbing philosophy. Of course it is a long time, and anyone contemplating a fatal attack upon a police officer might well hesitate at the prospect of being in prison for about ten years. But let us be realistic about it, as the Royal Commission was realistic about it. Imprisonment is the ordinary professional risk taken by the criminal. He accepts it. It carries no stigma for the criminal community. Many criminals have a perverted pride in it. But one thing which does matter in the criminal community and which puts fear in their minds and acts on their decisions not to go about armed, in the main, is the fear of the death penalty.
  Mr. Orme: No.
  Mr. Gardner: If the hon. Member reads the Royal Commission's Report he will see that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, in giving evidence, cited the case of a gang of shop breakers one of whose members was convicted of murder, sentenced to death and then reprieved. The gang still held together and continued operating. Later two further members of the gang were convicted of murder, and they were hanged—and the gang disappeared and no more was heard of it. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis—and I do not think his conclusion can in any way seriously be attacked—said that it was reasonable to suppose that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for the dissolution of the gang was the fact that the others took notice of the death penalty, whereas they were prepared, as the majority of criminals are, to take the risk of imprisonment and to set that on one side of the balance sheet against the loot which can be obtained from successful crime.
  Mr. Paget: The hon. Member is referring to the Captain Benny case. I am
  1608
  quoting from memory, but I think a question was put to the Commissioner, "Might not the gang have dissolved because the two leading spirits were no longer there?" He said, in reply, "Yes, that might account for the dissolution of the gang".
  Mr. Gardner: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. He makes a point which I should have hesitated to make.
  Mr. William Yates: Even if the deterrent perhaps does not work against some criminals, does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it has some effect among the family and relatives and those around the criminal classes?
  Mr. Gardner: I entirely agree. The question is whether nine or ten years of imprisonment, representing life imprisonment, is sufficient to frighten the criminal. Personally—and these are matters for personal decision—I think that really long terms of imprisonment must have the most alarming effects upon the criminal mind.
  We have the position, which leaves us in a state of surprise, that the Home Secretary views ten years as adequate to frighten a killer from using a gun on a policeman without in any way referring to the consequences of other crimes which are not comparable. Murder is the gravest of all crimes, and the Royal Commission accepted that for it there is the most severe of all penalties. Consider the case of a man who has just robbed a bank. He has a gun in his pocket. If he is caught, and bearing in mind sentences which have been imposed recently, he might get a sentence of imprisonment of up to 30 years. Whether we say that this is good or bad is beside the point. Seeing the policeman approach, he may decide to use his gun in order to shoot his way out to freedom. If, having killed the policeman, he is then caught, he will go to prison not for 30 years but for an average of nine or ten years. This seems to me to be provocation, not prevention, and not protection of the police force.
  Mr. Orme: Does the hon. and learned Member seriously suggest that if murder had been committed during the train robbery the sentences passed would not have been as long as those already passed—30 years?
  Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making the point. If

  1609
  a person commits murder with a gun, or in the course of or furtherance of theft, then under the provisions of the Homicide Act he attracts the punishment of hanging. That is the present law. If capital punishment is abolished we shall reach what I submit is the quite absurd and unacceptable position of the robber who kills being exposed to the peril of nine or ten years' imprisonment—that is, life imprisonment—for murder, whereas the robber who does not kill is at the peril of going to prison for 30 years. That is the reality of the situation.
  Those who support the Bill in toto, without seeing any of its grave defects—and they are there to be seen by anyone who carefully examines the Bill—will not face up to reality. All I am trying to persuade the Committee is to face the reality of the situation. I beg the Committee to accept that as we look upon the police constable as a shield against the criminal community, so the police constable in his turn may look to us for protection. What protection shall we give? Shall we abolish the protection which he has had up to now? It is easy, in the comparative quiet and safety of the House, to say, "We do not have to worry about policemen. Only a few are shot at. It happens only once in ten or fifteen years that a policeman is killed. Why need we concern ourselves with a remote possibility of this kind?" If it lets the Bill go through without an Amendment such as this, the Committee will be removing, from policemen the protection in which at the moment the majority of them can believe.
  12.30 p.m.
  it seems to me to matter very little whether their belief is well or ill founded, particularly so if it happens to be—as appears to be the case if the statistics are any guide—that the killing of policemen is rare. How can one say—and this is a point rehearsed time and again—"Where are the statistics to enable one to conclude how many policemen now walk the streets in safety whose lives have been saved by the fear in the minds of criminals that they have been apprehended"? It is proposed to remove that fear. It is all very well to say that we can do this with safety. Those who claim it must prove it. It is not for those who say that the protection should be maintained to prove that it is necessary. The onus lies upon those who say that
  1610
  we can do away with it. Let us see the evidence that it can be done away with in safety.
  People believe that capital punishment operates to protect the police, that it gives them safety and certainly gives them comfort. The majority of the police will tell one that they firmly believe that the death penalty as a punishment for the killing of a policeman is one of the most substantial safeguards that they have at the moment against the violence welling up around them.
  One must bear in mind, although this is a Private Member's Bill, that when we are considering the safety of policemen who are protecting the public, the Government's duty cannot be shifted on to the shoulders of a private Member, however sincerely the views of that hon. Member may be held and however much we may admire his tenacity of purpose. It is a responsibility that the Government have to take upon themselves.
  With the greatest respect and deference to the Home Secretary, I say to him that it is a duty which lies inevitably on his shoulders. Whatever he may feel personally about abolition or retention, I submit to him that, in his great office, he has, among other responsibilities, the grave one of seeing that everything is done to give the police the maximum protection they need and deserve against the criminal community.
  If anyone wants to desire authority to support this point of view, I draw their attention to what I am sure all hon. Members have carefully read—the memorandum to all hon. Members on the subject of capital punishment sent out by the Police Federation. Paragraph 11 says:
  "Although we have no proof that the special provisions in the Homicide Act are a deterrent against murdering policemen, it is a positive fact that in this country remarkably few are murdered; and also that very few criminals carry firearms, as distinct from coshes, pick helves or other similar weapons, which are carried and used to repel and not to kill. It is also a fact that policemen and policewomen consciously feel that the special provisions serve as an effective protection. So do their wives and families."
  And so do a multitude of other people in this country. I submit that the majority of them believe it.
  Last Friday I addressed a small meeting of about 33 people in a village hall.

  1611
  They were ratepayers in part of my constituency. We discussed the Bill. At the end of the meeting the chairman asked for a vote on a motion that capital punishment as a protection of the police should not be rejected. Those 33 people came from political parties of all colours, and not one showed any support for the view that we could with safety abolish capital punishment for the murder of policemen. Not one was not convinced that to do this would be to introduce a danger entirely unacceptable to the majority of the people and particularly unacceptable to the police.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I oppose the Amendment precisely because I believe that it would have the opposite effect to what is intended. Psychological factors have not been properly assessed by hon. Members discussing the so-called deterrent effect of capital punishment. I agree completely with the Home Secretary that the prime object must be to protect the public and, as legislators, we surely must try to achieve a balance, for no one can give any guarantee that any course he chooses will produce the result he expects in 100 per cent. of cases.
  There must, therefore, be a balance and one must be sure that, by plugging one outlet, one does not thereby open a larger one. I believe that this is precisely what the Amendment would do. I do not think that the professional criminal class is a violent one. It has been recognised that the professional criminal is not violent, particularly when it comes to committing murder. Murder is usually committed in the heat of the moment. It is not, in general, committed by people who have had previous records of violence.
  To say that the retention of capital punishment will protect the police is giving an assessment to factors which do not apply and leaving out factors which do apply. I believe, indeed, that we might increase the risk to the police by continuing to have capital punishment because there are individuals who have a necessity to kill and to whom there is a glamour about capital punishment. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) talked about the "gamble" involved, but did not say
  1612
  what the stakes were. Sometimes the stakes are not what appear to be obvious.
  Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman give a simple answer? A policeman confronts a criminal he is about to arrest. The criminal says, with gun in hand, "What have I to lose if I shoot you?". What does the policeman reply?
  Dr. Miller: I am not in a position to say what the policeman would reply. Surely we are talking about what we should do as legislators in this respect.
  When the potential murderer is in a position to kill, the gamble involved is sometimes not a gamble as one would normally expect. The gamble in such a case is concerned with the necessity for this individual to go out in a blaze of glory, especially when it comes to killing a policeman, because the kind of man who would be involved would not be concerned with the risk of his life being taken. That would be his object, his fundamental, psychopathological desire, and it is, therefore, possible that rather than protect the policeman, we would increase the chance of his being killed by a criminal of this type if we had a provision such as the Amendment suggests.
  Too little attention has been paid to the interplay of psychological factors. When we are arguing about what the criminal would think, we tend to believe that the violent criminal, the potential murderer, thinks as we do, that he weighs up the possibilities before taking action. If he does think about it, his innate desires may well come to the fore and make him kill because he wishes himself to be killed. It would obviously be a deterrent to us. It would be a very great deterrent to me, but I do not think that I am likely to commit a murder. It does not mean that it would be a deterrent to people such as those whom hon. Members opposite have described as the criminal classes.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree to go even further and say that while it may be a deterrent to him to make his speech in the atmosphere of this Chamber, if he were committing a robbery while armed with a lethal weapon, and a policeman suddenly loomed up at him from nowhere, if he had a pistol in his

  1613
  hand his actions might be very different and he would have no time to do this type of calculation, even if he were that type of individual?
  Dr. Miller: That is precisely the point which has been made over and over again—that something happens on the spur of the moment. The balance of whether the individual will be hanged or go to prison does not enter into it. The action is taken and that is all that there is to it.
  Mr. Lagden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the word "gamble" implies
  "stakes"? The hon. Gentleman has put forward this complicated opinion about a man who might desire to kill and who might set out to kill, but will he not bear in mind that, at the same time, the police officer, in the execution of his duty, also has a very large stake in this matter—his life?
  12.45 p.m.
  Dr. Miller: That is precisely the point I am making, that the policeman's life might even be safer if hanging is abolished.
  There have been such cases, and I can think of one myself concerning an individual who was a multiple murderer and who was hanged in Glasgow a few years ago. I am sure that he had a desire to be killed, and that if there had not been capital punishment five people might have been alive today. This man wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, and he did. He had a desire to die and he died on the gallows. That is what he wanted.
  When we consider these balances, we have also to remember the occasional possibility of the murderer who may have made the calculation and who murders to escape, who is the extreme case, as against the individual who kills precisely because he will be hanged, the individual who would not kill precisely because there was no capital punishment and who would kill only because of a desire to die on the scaffold. Future generations discussing this issue will probably do so from an entirely different point of view, with a knowledge of what goes on inside the mind of the individual, from the psychological or psychopathological point of view. I hope that the day is not too far away when it will be seen that there are individuals, who can be detected
  1614
  beforehand, who have psychopathic tendencies, violent tendencies. We shall then know very much more about what goes on in the mind of a potential murderer.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) has made a very sincere and thoughtful contribution to the debate. I appreciate his sincerity, but I fear that I cannot accept his argument. One point he made was in respect of the background of those guilty of capital murder. He said that the bulk were not professional criminals as such. I only remind him of some figures, which I have given to the Committee before, of previous convictions of 52 men convicted of capital murder since 1957. Fourteen had no previous convictions, but 38 had, ranging between one and 21 offences. I do no more than point to the hon. Gentleman the fact that we are not dealing with an isolated class of murderers such as we considered before the 1957 Act, but more than ever before with the professional criminal.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) suggested, this is not the least important of the Amendments which we shall consider. There is no category of public servant, not excluding the category we have just discussed, which would be more affected by the passage of the Bill unchanged. Hon. Members opposite must not beguile themselves by thinking that the risk some of these people run is imaginary, because it is not.
  We had a measure of that risk only this morning in some figures which the Home Secretary published in reply to a Question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). These concerned indictable offences known to the police and in which firearms had been involved in the last four years. They show a marked increase in the use of firearms and when there is a marked increase of that type, it is the police almost certainly who are most at risk.
  In view of what is at stake for the police, a word of tribute is due to them for their behaviour over the Bill in recent weeks and months. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay quoted the very restrained language of the paper

  1615
  from the Police Federation. Throughout these discussions all the policemen I have encountered have shown marked restraint towards a Bill which will affect their lives much more than it will affect the lives of any of us here. They have shown a marked degree of unselfishness.
  All my inquiries lead me to the conclusion that they are genuinely more concerned with the risk which might befall the public from gunmen than with the safety of their own skins. It is important to stress that we are speaking not for a frightened force, but for a force which is genuinely concerned about the consequences to the public.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay quoted the paper from the Police Federation. The Home Secretary will have made inquiries of his own among more senior policemen as to how they feel about this proposal. I think that he has stated in answer to a Question, or perhaps in a speech, that he was conducting such inquiries. I hope that he will be able to help the Committee with the conclusions that he has drawn from these inquiries. It is very important that we should be armed with the views, not only of the Police Federation, but of the more senior policemen, whom, I am sure, the Home Secretary in his duty has consulted, as they have always been consulted when a Bill of this kind has been before the House of Commons. I hope that before we go too far on this Amendment the Home Secretary will be able to assist us.
  I am not saying that the view of the senior policemen should be decisive, but it is highly relevant, and we should know what they feel. The police are very heavily engaged in combating violent crime, more heavily perhaps than at any other time. Frankly, the battle is not moving their way. I do not want to exaggerate or to dramatise this matter because it requires neither, but it is fair to say that there has emerged in the last year or two a rather miscellaneous minority of criminals who are ready to resort to extreme measures. As has been said very convincingly, they are playing for very high stakes.
  That is not all. The danger of gunfire to the policeman is not limited exclusively to the professional criminal, the man who
  1616
  may shoot his way out of a difficult situation. There is also—and I know that the Home Secretary is well aware of this—the hoodlum, which is a more expressive word than "hooligan". I accept that against this development we are ranging the Firearms Bill, which I think is now a stronger Measure than it was when it was introduced. It will undoubtedly reduce the number of guns in circulation. What the Home Secretary will do by way of an amnesty will reduce the number of guns in circulation. But it will not deny arms to the determined criminal, and it will not of itself prevent him from using arms against the police in certain circumstances. I am sure that that will be accepted even by those who have great hopes of what the Firearms Bill may do.
  It will be argued, on the other hand, that the fact that so many policemen have, alas, in recent months been involved in shooting affairs proves that hanging is not a deterrent. That is a very rash assumption. This argument is constantly used in one form or another in favour of abolition. I would merely refer—I will not quote it all again—to the views of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in paragraph 59 of its Report which states:
  "We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes."
  None of us knows how many men have been deterred from shooting a policeman, in particular, at a critical moment by the existence of hanging.
  Alternatively, it may well be argued that we had 18 months' experience between the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in 1956 and its rejection by the House of Lords and that in that 18 months no policeman was shot.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: That was not the 18 months. The 18 months period was between the passing of the Second Reading of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill and the passing of the Homicide Act the following year.
  Mr. Deedes: I accept the correction in point of time, but there was a period of 18 months during which no policeman was shot.
  Mr. Silverman indicated dissent.
  Mr. Deedes: I would not seek to make too much or too little of that; it was eight years ago. Hon. Members must weigh for themselves whether circumstances today appear to them as they appeared eight years ago. It is not unfair to suggest that on appearances the police today are at greater risk from certain quarters than they were then.
  I cannot but think that any member of this Committee who is prepared to weigh up coolly the merits of this Amendment in present circumstances must conclude that it might be a wise exception to the Bill. What depresses me is the knowledge that it will not be so weighed. The case for this Amendment, and other Amendments, is not being weighed on merit. It is not being weighed on what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay described as the realities of the situation. It is being weighed on other considerations.
  Mr. Costain: Do not some Members here say that the opposite argument can logically be made?
  Mr. Deedes: I was about to say, because I am most anxious to be fair, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and his closest supporters view the Bill in the light of a crusade. I take no exception to this. The hon. Gentleman has a right to do that. He and his supporters are crusaders for total abolition. Nothing less will suit them. I am not without some respect for their attitude. The House of Commons would be a very poor place if it turned its back on crusaders, and I should like to acknowledge that.
  But this is not quite the position of the Government and the Home Secretary. I do not think that members of the Government, and the Home Secretary, in particular, can quite regard themselves as acting as crusaders. The Home Secretary has other and graver responsibilities. I want to echo what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay said. I do not wish to appear presumptuous in saying this, but it is part of our argument. He has the gravest responsibilities for law, and order and for the police, one-third of whom, in the Metropolitan area, come under his direct responsibility. An obligation rests on the Home Secretary to weigh up coolly the merits of this Amendment.
  Mr. Paget: The point on which I have been waiting to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views is this. The police are so much safer in the "Abolitionist Stakes" than in the "Capital Punishment Stakes", particularly in America. This has been one of the principal reasons why a number of American States which formerly had capital punishment are now going abolitionist. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the evidence, for instance, of the Chief of Police of Rhode Island, just the other day, who supported the abolition of capital punishment because experience showed that it made things so much safer for the police?
  Mr. Deedes: I would not deny that there are sincere abolitionists among policemen. This is why I have asked the Home Secretary to give us information on the results of his inquiries among senior policemen. While there may be abolitionists among policemen, men who sincerely hold that point of view, there is for them a bigger risk than for anybody else.
  Mr. Lagden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is desirable to ask the Home Secretary to obtain the opinions of top policemen, it is also very important for him to pay full attention to the opinion of the Police Federation, which represents the man on the beat?
  Mr. Deedes: I am assuming that the Home Secretary will have taken note, as other hon. Members have taken note, of what has come from the Police Federation. The point that I am making is that there are other views besides those of the Police Federation. There are men in senior positions in the police force in London and outside it who will have a view, and it is extremely important that the Committee should be able to share any findings which the Home Secretary has been able to gather from them. I am sure that he will appreciate that I am not anticipating dereliction of duty on his part. I know that we shall hear from him on this matter.
  In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), may I say that it is not conclusive evidence to point to policemen in the United States or anywhere else who may take a

  1619
  certain view about capital punishment and relate it to the present criminal situation in this country and the situation which confronts policemen in dealing with the criminal population. It is the situation in this country with which some of us are concerned and which, at this moment, renders aspects of this Bill so very difficult and possibly so very dangerous.
  1620
  What I was saying when the hon. and learned Gentleman intervened was this. He—
  It being One o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Resolution [18th March].
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.
  Sitting suspended.
  Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Hill Cow Subsidy
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement about the assistance which he intends to give to those hill farmers who have been given notice of discontinuance of hill cow subsidy as a result of the recent reviews undertaken at the time of the previous Administration.
    Sir H. Studholmeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now come to a decision as to the best way of helping those farms in Devon which have been excluded from the hill cow subsidy scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the review of hill cow farmers has now been completed; and how he proposes to help those who have been excluded from this subsidy.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): These farmers have had to be excluded from the hill cow subsidy, under the recently completed review, because their land is suitable to a material extent for dairying, fattening or cash cropping. Several of the changes made at this year's Annual Review will benefit them. Furthermore, we are giving urgent consideration to the longer-term problems of small farms and development in the hills.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that the short-term problem is that there are small farmers who are declared ineligible and who face a loss of up to £900 a year and that the Annual Price Review does
    1622
    nothing specifically for those hill farmers who are outside the scheme? As, furthermore, the Minister points to a decline in beef production, would it not be valuable to give these farmers immediate assistance so that they can revert to beef production?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member will appreciate that I have looked carefully at the position. I cannot, however, accept his thesis that if farmers have, after all, been found to be drawing a subsidy which Parliament never intended them to draw, it is up to the Government of the day to devise special compensatory measures. This is what we are doing. I am urgently studying ways of tackling the basic problems, not only of small farmers, but of those on the uplands as well.
    Mr. Thorpe: May we know when the result of the Minister's thinking will be made known?
    Mr. Peart: As soon as I complete my survey of the uplands as well as of the hill areas, I will certainly convey the information to the House.
    Sir H. Studholme: Can the Minister now answer the question which I put to him in the debate on the hill cow subsidy in the autumn about whether farmers who have been disqualified from the hill cow subsidy can be eligible under the winter keep scheme?
    Mr. Peart: They can apply and each individual case will be considered by my Department.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that in the particularly farming area which I represent, it is difficult—in fact, impossible—to find alternative farming methods? The farmers cannot turn to milk or to cereals. The Minister gave an assurance that he would look into the matter and see whether further legislation could be brought in to bring these people within the scheme. He has not done so in the last Price Review. The Minister should give us an answer on this subject.
    Mr. Peart: I am looking at this matter and I have given a reply to the hon. Member. I will bear in mind all representations that are made to me. I have met representatives from the National Farmers' Union and also from the area on this question. I am sympathetic but,

    1623
    for the reasons which 1 have given, I could not alter the position. I will, however, consider the matter carefully.

    Beef
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the reputation of beef produced in this country by traditional methods, he will be vigilant in ensuring that artificial production methods do not undermine this.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James H. Hoy): This is essentially a matter in which consumer preference must exert its influence on the market. But, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) on 10th March, he has asked his Scientific Advisory Panel to consider whether intensive systems of production of animals have any effect on the quality and taste of food produced from them.
    Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that the recent Price Review will do little to encourage graziers either to maintain the quantity or to improve the quality of beef? As beef rearing in the traditional manner is the result of a long and painstaking process, will the Minister consider another Price Review so that this factor can be taken into consideration?
    Mr. Hoy: The Price Review is the settlement which has been produced. The hon. Member's supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question on the Paper.

    Maize (Imports)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the total tonnage of maize imported in 1955 and in the latest available year.
    Mr. Hoy: The total tonnage of maize imported was 1·5 million tons in 1955 and 3–4 million tons in 1964.
    Mr. Farr: In view of this startling increase in the importation of maize, which has almost doubled in 10 years, will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend amend the arrangements whereby they imposed savage price cuts
    1624
    upon our coarse grain producers and try instead to economise in the production of maize, at the same time saving foreign currency, which is badly needed?
    Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member had better face the fact that what was done in the Price Review was in conformity with an international agreement that w0as entered into by the Government of his party.
    Mr. Stodart: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of this imported maize is used for feedingstuffs and how much is used to adulterate a product called Scotch whisky?
    Mr. Hoy: I cannot answer the last part of the question about whether the whisky is adulterated. I have often heard it said that there are certainly a lot of very good whiskies but no bad ones. In reply to the first part of the question, animal feeding requirements have risen by 3¼ million tons since 1955.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that there was no reason in the international agreement why the Government had to make the maximum cut this year on cereals?
    Mr. Hoy: What I am saying—and the hon. Gentleman cannot evade it—is that the agreement was entered into by the Government of which he was a member and that we were bound by international agreement to take certain action in the event of certain limits being reached.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, having regard to the current price of potatoes, he will now arrange with the Potato Marketing Board for a support price.
    Mr. Hoy: I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) on 22nd February.
    Mr. King: Is the Minister aware that this potato price is as inadequate as is the price offered by him for milk? When the Government decided upon this policy of poverty farming, did they also consider the effect not only upon the farmer, but

    1625
    upon agricultural workers, whose standard of living is already low and which must as a result become lower?
    Mr. Hoy: That supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question. Indeed, it is just a conglomeration rather resembling the hon. Member's political thinking.
    Mr. Speaker: I quite agree that the supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question, but I am not certain that I greatly admire that type of answer.
    Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Member puts a supplementary question that has nothing to do with the original Question, Mr. Speaker, certainly he must take that type of answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
    Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. The point is that if answers are used for what I might describe as making gentle inter-party attacks, such a practice tends to prolong the time we take Over Questions.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member on the Front Bench to contest your Ruling whilst back-benchers cannot?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was contesting any Ruling. If he did, I did not notice it. I want to get on with Questions.
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the average price per ton of potatoes paid to the grower in the last three months.
    Mr. Hoy: The average price received by United Kingdom growers for the last three months is estimated at £14 12s. a ton.
    Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this price is insufficient to yield to farmers a sufficient return, and as he appears to have taken some umbrage at my earlier Question, may I ask whether he is aware that that is not merely my opinion, but the opinion of 200 angry Dorset farmers who were stamping the Lobby this morning? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is my duty to put their view, just as it is his duty to hear it, and to note it?
    Mr. Hoy: Of course, and I will listen to it if it is put by the hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that the guaranteed price for the 1964 crop was £14 per ton. That was the agreement reached. Over the last three months it has been shown that the price is likely to be about £14 12s. As the hon. Gentleman knows, further discussions are taking place, but we have had two support buying programmes in the course of this year to get it to this level.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is it not correct that the United Kingdom average conceals a depressed price paid to growers in Scotland, and can the hon. Gentleman say what estimate he and his right hon. Friends have made of the losses incurred by potato growers, particularly growers in Scotland, as a result of the Government's slowness in accepting the commercial judgment of the Potato Marketing Board?
    Mr. Hoy: It is true that throughout the years the price in Scotland has always been different from that south of the Border. This is nothing new. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am bound to say that all this was taken into consideration when the price was fixed at the last Annual Review. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman knows that it was as a result of this Annual Review that the price was increased.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he had accepted the advice offered to him by the Potato Marketing Board earlier this year he would have avoided a great deal of dissatisfaction among potato growers as well as saving the taxpayer a good deal of money which he wasted by refusing that advice?
    Mr. Hoy: That just is not correct. What we had to do was to wait to see how the prices were moving, and at the end of last year a support scheme was agreed to. In the early part of this year, when it looked as though the market might fall more, we were approached once again. My right hon. Friend then said that, if the market showed any sign of a further decline, he would enter into another programme. This he did, and gave approval for a further scheme of support buying which has brought the market back to its present level.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the price paid to producers of potatoes is currently £12 to £14 per ton and that the price charged to the housewife is about £36 per ton; and what steps he will take to investigate the reasons for this price difference.
    Mr. Peart: During the week ended 23rd March growers' prices of potatoes ranged between about £12 and £21 per ton according to variety and quality. Average retail prices in England and Wales during the same period were equivalent to about £31 per ton for white varieties and £38 per ton for reds; for different varieties in Scotland retail prices varied between £21 and £32. The margin between growers' and retail prices is not, therefore quite as wide as my hon. Friend suggests, particularly in Scotland; and in any case it is rather misleading to express the retail price in terms of £s per ton. These margins were examined by the Runciman Committee.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is not my right hon. Friend concerned about the apparently outrageous disparity between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays? Does this not emphasise the need for the kind of inquiry that I asked for in my earlier Question, to find out exactly where the hundreds of millions of pounds of public money each year are going—whether to the producer or the consumer, or to the middleman, as I suspect?
    Mr. Peart: As I have already said to my hon. Friend, what I think matters most in the future are proper marketing and a reduction in the costs of distribution. I am bearing these things in mind. Naturally, I am anxious to improve things. Horticulture is one subject which has still to be considered.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the allegations of feather-bedding of farmers which are constantly being made by his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should not be so touchy and sensitive. There is no question of an argument for or against feather bedding. As I have said over and over again, we have given support to the principles of the 1947 Act,
    1628
    and the last Review, which is a £10 million plus review, compares very favourably with Reviews made under the Conservative Administration. The latest Review will enable farmers to have their incomes improved.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole thing is out of order anyway, and always was.

    Sheep and Goats (Live Exports)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now give an estimate of how many of the 89,254 sheep and goats exported live in 1963 were exported for the purpose of slaughter overseas.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): All but about 2,000.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does that Answer mean, therefore, that well over 100,000 cattle, sheep and goats are exported from this country annually? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he considers this trade inevitable and whether he intends to take any steps to try to transfer this to carcase trade, which many of us think would be more desirable?
    Mr. Mackie: Many of us, on both sides, were worried about the treatment that these animals received, and that was the reason for the Balfour assurances covering the five countries concerned. The Balfour assurances were intended to do the best we could and were a fairly good method of ensuring that cruelty was limited. It is difficult to answer the question about whether this trade is inevitable, but as a business man the hon. Member must know that if the customer wants the animals that way, unless something is seriously wrong they must be supplied that way.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the hon. Gentleman take all the steps in his power to try to encourage these people to go on to the export of carcase meat and not of live animals, because there is a very real feeling of anxiety in the country about cruelty in this matter?
    Mr. Mackie: I will certainly take into consideration the feelings of hon. Members and of the public in this matter.

    Milk
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that adequate encouragement is being given to milk producers to maintain an adequate supply of milk for both the liquid and manufacturing markets; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. Liquid needs are fully safeguarded by the standard quantity arrangements. The surplus for manufacture this year should be almost 45 percent. of liquid sales. As the dairy herd appears to be growing, and having regard to the recent increase in the guaranteed price, there is no reason to suppose supplies will not be adequate.
    Mr. Kitson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, as he was able to give only such a small increase to milk producers under this Price Review, the time has now come when he should free the price control to the Milk Marketing Board and give the Board a freer hand, because if the price goes any higher the demand will drop? Does he not think that the Milk Marketing Board ought itself to have the chance to control the price of milk?
    Mr. Peart: I do not accept that, and, as the hon. Member knows, even my predecessor did not accept this. Apart from that, because of the increase we have given, relative to what was given on many other occasions since the scheme came into operation, the position is far more generous.
    Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will give serious concern to Scotland where there is a steady decline in the number of producers and where, indeed, the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board has said the situation may well become critical?
    Mr. Peart: There has been a decline over the last 10 to 12 years, but hon. Members opposite did not protest against it. All I am saying now, and what I think is right, is that, in view of the evidence and the analysis of the situation, there is no danger of a shortage, and hon. Members must not exaggerate.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the size of the
    1630
    dairy herd shows signs of diminishing? Is he aware that the cost of milk production is rising so fast that many small milk producers who work extremely long hours consider that they would be better off if they sold out and invested their money in United Dairies shares which would give them more money to spend for doing no work at all?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what the hon. Member has said. Indeed, what he is saying is really irresponsible, and he knows it.
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increase in costs of milk production expressed as pence per gallon during the year 1964–65.
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what proportion the increase in the cost of milk production during the 12 months to the latest convenient date exceeded 1d. per gallon.
    Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to hon. Members who raised this question on 24th March.
    Mr. Prior: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind about this Price Review that it is not just that milk prices are going up by another 1d. so much as the fact that a lot of producers now feel that, working, as they do, seven days a week and at the weekend, and long hours, and with all the troubles involved with milk production and looking after cows, it is not really worth their while being in milk any longer? As a psychological barrier is being built up, does he not think that the time really has come now for a bigger increase?
    Mr. Peart: I accept all that the hon. Member has said about the seven-day week, but there is nothing new about this. This has happened over the years. Hon. Members opposite knew this last year, but there was no protest. The hon. Member talked about psychological factors. I agree that they are there. On the other hand, as I have said, I have given an increase and that increase, with the increase last year, means a valuable increase of 10 per cent. over two years, which is much higher than ever before. If I may just repeat the point, it means £9 million on the guaranteed price. The increase in the standard quantity means a further 2 million.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he expects the farmers to get the whole of this enormous increase of 1d. and that the Board will be able to pay 1d., or does he expect it to be whittled away to 0·6 of ld.?
    Mr. Peart: It will cover the increase in costs. This has even been admitted by the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. I really think hon. Members should not exaggerate.
    Sir M. Redmayne: It is not a question of exaggerating. The Minister says there is nothing new about the seven-day week in milk. That, of course, is true. What is new is that industry and the distributive trades are constantly getting better conditions than the farmers, and that is why they feel they ought to have a better reward for their work.
    Mr. Peart: On the question of distribution in the industry, I have announced the setting up of an inquiry, and I shall make a report on this. It is a matter of obtaining a right balance. If we encourage over-production the effects on the small producer could be disastrous. The question is to have a sensible balance.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the workings of the standard quantity system in relation to the production of milk; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: At the request of the farmers' unions and the Milk Marketing Boards, the Agricultural Departments are reviewing with them the basis on which the standard quantities are set. I shall consider the present arrangements in the light of these discussions.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the world production of milk is no longer increasing and that world stocks of dairy produce are declining? In those circumstances, would he not agree that the home producer is entitled to a greater share of the market for manufactured dairy produce?
    Mr. Peart: I have said that I am reviewing the standard quantities. I hope that the hon. Member will not panic. We have a 45 per cent. reserve.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the details of the negotiations of the Price Review are supposed to be confidential? In view of this, will he and his hon. Friend stop making misleading statements about the supposed demands of the N.F.U. for a 6d. price increase?
    Mr. Peart: I accept that the details are secret, and I have not revealed them. I have said in broadcasts and in speeches that some members of the farming community have made an absurd demand of 6d. a gallon for milk, which would have meant £54 million to the consumers.

    Dairy Farmers
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Welsh dairy farmers have gone out of business during each of the last five years.
    Mr. Peart: The number of registered milk producers in Wales leaving dairying over the last five years has been as follows: 1960, 464; 1961, 555; 1962, 742; 1963, 795; 1964, 903.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest information about the extent to which farmers are closing their dairies.
    Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 3rd February.
    Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first two months of this year the number of producers was falling more rapidly than ever, and that since the disastrous milk award there is evidence that plans already approved for modernisation of dairies are being cancelled? Is it not clear that there is a danger now that some of the big producers as well as the small producers may go out of production and that this will very much reduce the supply of liquid milk?
    Mr. Peart: I gave the hon. Gentleman information, and I stand by it. This process had gone on for a very long period. We are giving an award to the producers which is a £11 million-plus award. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not"] It is no good saying that it is not; it is. The £11 million is made up of £9 million

    1633
    in guarantee prices and £2 million in the increase in the standard quantities. It amounts to £11 million-plus. We argue that the award, linked with the last one, compares very favourably with previous awards. There is no need for the pessimism of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. David Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend taken notice of the mass protests from the poor, impoverished farmers and compared this behaviour with that of the bare-footed Jarrow miners many years ago?
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about increased awards to the farmers. Why does he not, in all fairness, say something about their increased costs?
    Mr. Peart: I accept that, and I bear this in mind. But I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate the awards en bloc over the years. I have repeated the figures. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has yet appreciated them, and perhaps I may read them out again: 1955, plus 0·75d.; 1956, plus ½d.; 1957, plus, ¼d.; 1958, minus ld.—there were no protests from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite then; 1959, no change; 1960, minus ¼d.—there was no opposition from the hon. and gallant Gentleman then; 1961, plus 0·8d.; 1962, minus 0·4d.; 1963, plus ½d. and 1964, plus 2½d.
    Sir M. Redmayne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that to reel off those figures without relating them to costs and production is useless?
    Mr. Peart: Figures are useless only when hon. Members are not prepared to understand them.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most serious farmers will not share the extravagant claims being put forward by the Opposition—and by "serious farmers" I do not include the stockbroker, lunatic fringe, controlled loss element?

    Wheat and Barley
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the estimated acreages of wheat and barley for the 1965 cereal harvest.
    Mr. John Mackie: I would refer the Member to the reply I gave on 24th March to the hon. Members for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).
    Mr. Kitson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the substantial cuts in the guaranteed price of cereals this year will reduce the acreages for the next?
    Mr. Mackie: No.
    Sir J. Maitland: In a period where incomes are expected to increase in various trades and businesses throughout the country, has the hon. Gentleman made any estimates of the loss of income which will occur in the wheat and barley growing areas such as Lincolnshire, and, if so, what are they?
    Mr. Mackie: Naturally, being a farmer I have made these estimates, and I have done what a lot of other farmers have already done, and that is just to look at how one could increase yields. The hon. Member gets a little impatient. All right, if he will just wait I will tell him how. Another half hundredweight of ammonia and better seeds will do the trick.
    Mr. Sheldon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the subsidies paid for grain are a direct subvention from the taxpayers to the farmers, and will not he further agree that, as far ahead as one can foresee, those grains will be available in other countries both in the quantity required and at a price very considerably cheaper than that here? Will he further assure this House that he does not intend habitually and indefinitely to capitulate to one of the best organised pressure groups in the country?
    Mr. Mackie: I am afraid that I would not altogether agree with what my hon. Friend has said, although there is some truth in the point that he is putting.
    Mr. Snow: On a point of order. When the last reply was given from the Front Bench on this side I saw certain Members of the Opposition pointing up to the Public Galleries. I ask your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker. Should we not ignore entirely persons outside this Chamber?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not a breach of order not to, but it is highly desirable that we should.
    Sir H. Harrison: May I ask the Minister whether he has considered that the cut in the price of barley will perhaps lead to more than the 4 per cent. legally allowed under the 1957 Act—that is, if the cut is taken together with the reduced subsidy on fertilisers, then in spirit it will be more than 4 per cent.?
    Mr. Mackie: No. That would be a very complicated calculation and I cannot do it off the cuff at the present moment.

    Meat Marketing
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in his plans for meat marketing, he will include imported meat and offal.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to implement the proposals of the Verdon-Smith Report.
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce his plans for meat marketing following the Verdon-Smith report.
    Mr. Peart: I will, with permission, answer this Question and Questions Nos. 20 and 9 together.
    I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on 24th March. I have now started consultations with the main organisations concerned.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an urgent and important matter, particularly from the point of view of the balance of payments position? Is there any possibility of an early development of his plan, which will be welcomed by the very friendly and sensible farmers in Norfolk?
    Mr. Peart: I am anxious to speed this up, and that is why consultations have already taken place.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gilmour.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that my Question No. 29 bears no relation to Question No. 13?
    Mr. Peart: I did not say so.
    Mr. Speaker: We are not doing very well, but I am the principal confuser. Mr. Gilmour to ask No. 14.

    Small Farmers (Credit)
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to set up an agricultural credit organisation to help small farmers.
    Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 51 of the White Paper on the Annual Review (Cmnd. 2621). This announces a new type of credit arrangement in the agricultural field, which will be supported by a Government grant in aid. This seems to have been warmly welcomed.
    Mr. Gilmour: I agree with that, as far as it goes. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it does not go as far as the First Secretary promised in his Swaffham speech on 17th July, 1963? As the deplorable agricultural policies of the Government have greatly increased farmers' overdrafts, and therefore made improved credit much more necessary, should not he speedily implement that promise?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must realise that this is the first step forward for agriculture. Grant aid will be given of nearly £250,000. We have done this within six months of coming into office, and it is based on a long-term point of view. After all, we are going to govern for another five years.
    Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this in no way fulfils the electoral promise made by his right hon. Friend in that the cheap credit is not cheap? Is he further aware that it was promises made before the last election on those lines which led the farming community to expect rather better of the right hon. Gentleman than they have obtained, and that this is what all the noise is about now?
    Mr. Peart: It is rather remarkable that people expect more in six months than they received in six years of Conservative administration. The fact is that we have acted, and nearly £250,000 will be allocated for this purpose.
    Mr. James Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the former Government, with or without a farmers' lobby

    1637
    alongside them, did anything in this connection in the past years?
    Mr. Peart: They did absolutely nothing for agriculture.

    Marketing Schemes
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the establishment of more producer marketing boards.
    Mr. Peart: Proposals for marketing schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, must come from the producers concerned. The Government stand ready to consider any further schemes submitted under the Act by agricultural producers.
    Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the famous speech of the First Secretary before the election suggested the creation of a large number of producer marketing boards?
    Mr. Peart: It must have been a famous speech, and the hon. Gentleman must have agreed with it very much, though subconsciously. We are doing something about orderly marketing. I have taken action. We are to have the Cereal Marketing Act, and we are hoping to have something in relation to meat, which is very important.
    Mr. Bessell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the opinion of the horticultural industry when he is contemplating the establishment of further marketing boards?
    Mr. Peart: I will always bear that in mind. I remember the disaster of the previous Administration over the Horticultural Marketing Council which had no teeth, and the poor thing died.

    Agricultural Co-operatives
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what direct financial help will be given in 1965 to farmers' co-operatives.
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants and loans, respectively, he expects to provide for agricultural co-operatives during 1965.
    Mr. Peart: We will be introducing, as soon as practicable, the arrangements out-
    1638
    lined in the Annual Review White Paper whereby agricultural co-operatives will enjoy benefits parallel with those already available to horticultural co-operatives in respect of grants towards their working capital needs and of the backing of guarantees on loans made to them by banks. Grants to agricultural co-operatives under the Market Development Scheme will also continue to be available.
    Mr. Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some estimate of the amount that he expects to provide in grants during 1965–66?
    Mr. Peart: Approximately £200,000.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that co-operatives generally are very pleased with the interest that he has shown? Will he study carefully the suggestions made to him which show a preference for loans rather than for grants?
    Mr. Peart: I will bear this in mind. I know that my hon. Friend has pressed this matter, and I shall carefully examine it.
    Mr. Stainton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House under which Administration that Act was passed to provide for these grants to be given?
    Mr. Peart: It is true that grants were given to horticulture, but I felt that the agricultural industry needed this treatment as well.

    Fertilisers
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the tolerances allowed on the analysis of fertilisers, with a view to introducing legislation to reduce them, in view of the more highly efficient methods of manufacture and the modern highly concentrated nature of the product.
    Mr. John Mackie: The Standing Advisory Committee which is responsible for advising the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend on any amendments to the regulations under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, considered the tolerances for compound fertilisers—which comprise the bulk of the fertilisers used—as

    1639
    recently as 1963 and decided that no change was necessary. If anyone considers they have fresh evidence on this matter, I would advise them, as the Department has already advised the National Farmers' Union, to bring it before the Standing Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this seems to be an example of the Minister getting out of his responsibility? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the fertiliser which is principally used for cereal production, the limits of variation extend to the value of £2 12s. a ton, of which more than 17s. constitutes public money in subsidies? Is he further aware that in certain parts of the world, particularly in Holland and in certain States in America, tolerances are very much lower than in this country? Finally, is he aware that there is a certain possibility of manufacturers being able to produce to the bottom end of the scale limits, therefore taking unnecessary advantage over their customers?
    Mr. Mackie: With regard to the first point in the hon. Member's very long supplementary question, the Minister is certainly not sliding out of his responsibility. He is acting under the advice of the Advisory Committee on this subject and the National Farmers' Union put forward certain suggestions which have been considered—[Interruption.]—if I could have a time of quietness to answer the Question, I am prepared to do so. To the point the hon. Member makes about other countries I would reply that we do not need slavishly to follow other countries. The Advisory Committee is available for advice in this matter. If the hon. Member has a cast-iron case to present he should put it through the union and it will be attended to.

    Pigs
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will improve the guaranteed price paid to pig producers.
    Mr. Peart: The guaranteed price and the level of the middle band in combination determine what producers' returns will be, and the two must be looked at together. We have raised the middle
    1640
    band by 900,000, and, while the basic guaranteed price related to this higher middle band has been reduced by 1s. 7d. per score, the immediate effect of the two changes is to increase producers' returns on average by 11d. per score from 29th March.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that many farmers who produce pigs, instead of just talking about them, are well aware that their costs recently have gone up 25s. per pig and their receipts have gone down £2 and the net effect of the Minister's allegedly generous changes is in fact to depress the industry where pigs are produced.
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is being rather offensive, I think. Lots of people do not produce pigs and he does not either—that is why he is here.
    Mr. Griffiths: I do.
    Mr. Peart: You have somebody else to produce them—[Interruption.]—Mr. Speaker, if I could be protected from hon. Members, I should be grateful.
    Hon. Members: Windy.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister requires any protection—it is the pigs. We are not getting on with Questions.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to you producing pigs?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with Questions. Everyone will be so annoyed in due course that they did not get on with Questions.
    Mr. Peart: In reply to the hon. Member, may I reply—
    Sir H. Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) does produce pigs. He has a herd of over 1,000 in Sussex. Is it in order to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot import them into a point of order.
    Mr. Peart: In reply to the question which I was asked, if the hon. Member will read carefully the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he will find

    1641
    that he said that the adjustments for pigs were not out of line with what was required.
    Mr. Griffiths: I should like to ask the Minister if he will correct the record and, in correcting the record, withdraw his statement that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds does not produce pigs. In fact he does.
    Mr. Peart: I was only saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—that he employed other people to do the farming for him.
    Sir M. Redmayne: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not yet Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make transmissible gastroenteritis in pigs a notifiable disease.
    Mr. John Mackie: No, Sir. In spite of the considerable amount of research work done, we do not yet know enough about the disease to say whether control based on compulsory notification is practicable.
    Mr. Gilmour: Surely to make this disease notifiable is the only way of investigating it properly. Would it not be better to act sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Mackie: One has to have considerable knowledge of the whole situation before one can act. It is a big step to take to make a disease notifiable, such as we had to do in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever. A considerable amount of research is going on, and there is no lack of funds for it. If the situation develops—we have recently had outbreaks particularly in the hon. Gentleman's area—I take it that it will be in hand. It is not a question of acting too late; it is a question of acting when we have the right knowledge.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his plans to increase the profitability of the pig industry; and whether he is satisfied with the workings of the standard quantity system in relation to the production of pig meat.
    Mr. Peart: The immediate effect of the changes we have made at the Review is to increase producers' returns, on average, by 11d. per score. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the
    1642
    hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on 24th March.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that the pig industry is not profitable at the moment? [Interruption.] Having kept pigs for 21 years I ought to know, and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not profitable. Will the right hon. Gentleman also remember that the increase in the Price Review will not cover the increased costs, so will he do something, in a five-year programme for the pig industry, to strengthen P.I.D.A. and to secure better marketing as well?
    Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that his right hon. Friend has supported what I have done. He said that it was just about right. Apart from that, there is the increase of 11d. per score.
    Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman get it into his head that this increase of 11d. per score is more than offset by extra costs, and that the raising of pigs is less remunerative today than it was? Will he understand that?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman should not get hysterical. Because of my decision to improve the position, it could well mean this year, another £3 million to £4 million.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the British pig industry is to supply as much high quality pig meat as the market wants it will still go outside the middle band, so ought not the upper level of the middle band to be increased still further?
    Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have improved the position. I have increased the middle band as well as the steps either side.

    Agricultural Advisory Services
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to extend the agricultural advisory services.
    Mr. John Mackie: Steps are being taken to strengthen the National Agricultural Advisory Service by some 50 posts primarily to give greater emphasis to the farm business management approach to advisory work.

    1643
    My right hon. Friend also proposes gradually to extend the veterinary investigation service by setting up six more veterinary investigation centres and enlarging eight existing centres to serve as focal points for veterinary investigation services in each region.—[Interruption.] The agricultural land service is currently under review. I am sorry if the hon. Member had difficulty in hearing what I was saying, but he will have to take that up with his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Morrison: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers make first-class use of the advisory services as they now exist? Would not he agree that there is an increasing demand for better services, particularly in view of last year's Price Review, and will he say what sort of advice he would give to the advisory services on how to advise the farmers to overcome the disadvantages of the 1965 Price Review?
    Mr. Mackie: I think I gave that advice to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) in answer to a Question a few moments ago. I do not think it would help Mr. Speaker to get on with Questions if I went into detail about how to increase production and the advice which could be given. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the use of the advisory services. It would behove all farmers to make far more use of the services, and the more use that is made of them the more we can increase the value of the services.
    Sir J. Maitland: In view of the Minister's determination to run down good agricultural land as expressed to me just now in an Answer to a Question, may I ask whether he will take the advice of his advisory services?
    Mr. Mackie: I can assure the hon. Member that I could produce findings from Rothamsted and from the Macaulay Research Institute to show that the application of artificial fertilisers does not run down the land.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hill, Question No. 22.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice about why Question No. 20 has been omitted.
    Mr. Speaker: It was answered with Question No. 13.
    Mr. Peart: I answered the hon. Member's Question.
    Later—
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. The Minister distinctly said, in answering Question No. 13, that he was answering it with Question No. 29—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I quite understand the inconvenience which has arisen. The Minister actually said "With Nos. 20 and 9", but a lot of people thought that he said "No. 29". That is why we got in a muddle.

    Small Farmer Scheme
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has drawn from the review of the first three years' working of the Small Farmer Scheme carried out by his Department.
    Mr. Peart: The great majority of small farmers who have received assistance under the Small Farmer Scheme have benefited. One conclusion which has emerged from my review of the Scheme is the importance of farm records as an aid to management, a factor which is to be reflected in the revised Scheme which I shall shortly be introducing.
    Mr. Hill: I welcome the extension of the Scheme which the Minister has included in the Annual Review. Will not he agree that the whole purpose of the Scheme is to enable these small farmers to become as efficient as possible? If he accepts that, how does he expect those small farms which have taken advantage of the Scheme to find scope in subsequent years for extra efficiency so that they can bear their share—because it falls on them—of the £25 million which is annually deducted from the industry by way of increased efficiency? Does not this bear very hardly on the small farmer?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must bear in mind that small farmers have been in difficulties for many years and I am trying to look at the Scheme differently. Instead of concentrating on field husbandry operations, I have said that I want increased managerial

    1645
    efficiency. I have altered the acreage qualification from 100 to 125 acres. I have also altered the standard man days. This will bring in another 40,000 farmers who can qualify for grant aid this year of up to £1,000. I think this is sensible and it has been welcomed by the farming community.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Minister aware that there are a number of fulltime farmers whose farms are too small to qualify for the Scheme? Many of them, in Scotland, are tenants of the Department of Agriculture. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do for these full-time small farmers?
    Mr. Peart: I agree that here there is a problem and that is why I am asking for a special survey with regard to co-operation. I think that the co-operation of the producers is necessary. I am not sure how they can specifically be helped, I admit that. I have done this for the small farmers to bring in another 40,000. I hope to review the situation and that I shall be able to make an announcement.

    Perishable Food
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate legislative or other action to ensure that containers and packets of perishable food are clearly marked with the date of packaging.
    Mr. Hoy: In its recent comprehensive Report on Food Labelling the Food Standards Committee examined this proposal but made no recommendation on it. We are now studying the large number of representations made on the Committee's Report before deciding on the form of new labelling regulations.

    Agriculture (Finance)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will appoint an independent committee, or person, with wide powers to inquire impartially and objectively into the financing of the agricultural industry.
    Mr. Peart: No, Sir. Financing is an aspect of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry,
    1646
    and these are reviewed annually. I see no need for an independent inquiry.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the consumer and taxpayer is getting thoroughly fed up with the way in which, year by year, hundreds of millions of pounds are poured into this allegedly private enterprise industry without anybody knowing just where it is going? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed. Would my right hon. Friend refer to the editorial in the Financial Times of 11th February, which recommended to my right hon. Friend that Sir Eric Roll, now at the Department of Economic Affairs, would be an ideal choice of someone who is qualified to undertake such an investigation?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. I have always believed in the 1947 Act and its main principle. I believe that support to agriculture helps producer and consumer. Added to that, as Minister of Food, I have to bear in mind, obviously, the importance of the consumer. I do this and will continue to do it. That is why I want to improve marketing and that is why, when I make a decision about Exchequer support, I have to bear in mind not only the producer but the consumer. As for a special inquiry, I do not think that we need it.
    Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs of the amount of the balance of payments which is saved by agricultural production?
    Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend fully accepts this and has said so, and I do as well.
    Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the consumer is very concerned about this annual pouring out of money, which is done in a closed manner between the National Farmers' Union and the Ministry concerned, and that there is a need for a public inquiry? Behind the facade which we have seen in the Lobby today there is a need for a public inquiry into the farming industry.
    Mr. Peart: I said to my hon. Friend that I bear the consumer in mind. I said this and I stress it. I must balance, quite rightly, the producer and the consumer. That is what we have done.
    Mr. Gower: Can the Minister reconcile his own assurance that all is well with agriculture, in the light of his proposals, with the hostility towards farmers and farming which is being expressed from the benches opposite.
    Mr. Peart: I think that the biggest danger to the farming community is for hon. Members opposite to defend some of the irresponsible actions of certain farmers who have protested against the Price Review.
    Sir M. Redmayne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was nothing in my hon. Friend's supplementary question which suggested anything of the sort?
    Mr. Peart: I have never heard the hon. Member condemn the wild elements who are now seeking to take action which would harm the farming community.
    Mr. Prior: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Lime Producers (Scotland)
    Mr. George Y. Mackieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are now to be taken to remove the difficulties for Scottish lime producers in the present lime subsidy scheme.
    Mr. John Mackie: Representations by Scottish lime producers about the provisions of the Lime Scheme relating to lime imported into Scotland are being considered as part of the general review of the working of the Scheme so far which my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State now have in hand. All the interests concerned, including the farmers to whose benefit the subsidy is directed, are being consulted by us. Any changes arising out of the review will be incorporated in amendments to the Scheme which will be required in any case to give effect to the reduction in this subsidy decided at the Annual Review. The necessary instrument will be laid as soon as possible.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has been reviewing this for some little time now, that Scottish producers of lime suffer from
    1648
    something like a 5s. disability compared with the English producers, and that this is no way to develop the north of Scotland or any other part? Can he say when this review is likely to result in action?
    Mr. John Mackie: That was a pretty sour supplementary Question on lime.
    Mr. Manuel: Quicklime.
    Mr. John Mackie: We have not been reviewing it for any time at all. The review is actually tomorrow, so that answers the first and last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. As regards the middle part, the Lime Scheme, as he is well aware, is for the benefit of farmers and agricultural land. There were considerable abuses in the early scheme, and this flat-rate scheme was made to simplify the whole matter. It also added an element of competition to the supply and production of lime. I understand that the hon. Member's party is very keen on this element of competition, and I do not see why he should complain about it.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: I beg to give notice that, in view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    White Fish Authority (Discussions)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with the Chairman of the White Fish Authority.
    Mr. Hoy: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 10th March to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).
    Mr. Wall: Can the Minister confirm that Mr. Matthew is to continue as Chairman of the White Fish Authority and can he say when the Government expect to make a statement on the statutory minimum prices scheme?
    Mr. Hoy: I have heard nothing to the contrary with regard to the first part of that question. Mr. Matthew has had a few meetings with me and nothing but friendly meetings have taken place. We

    1649
    hope that, as a result of these negotiations, we shall very soon be able to table proposals to deal with the fishing industry.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that the discussions referred to in this Question have an important bearing not only upon the fishing industry as such but on the ancillary industries and on the consumers and that, therefore, his statement should be expedited and elaborated?
    Mr. Hoy: There are, of course, many people who depend on the fishing industry in addition to the catcher. There are many land-based establishments whose livelihood it is. We have also the responsibility to the consumer, but we think that within the next few weeks we shall be able to make certain announcements. After all, Mr. Matthew's proposals reached us only at the beginning of this year.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that this report will be before the House between now and July?
    Mr. Hoy: I would certainly hope that a decision will come before July.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average increase in price of bread, meat, fish, potatoes, and flour, respectively, during the last quarter of 1964 and the first quarter of 1965.
    Mr. Peart: The price of the large white loaf rose by about 7½ per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1964, and has not changed since then. There was a 10 per cent. seasonal rise in potato prices during the fourth quarter but there has been no significant change so far this year. The only guide for the other commodities are the sub-groups of the Index of Retail Prices up to February and I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wall: Why is it that at a time when farmers are complaining about a cut in their income, the housewife has to pay more for a general range of foodstuffs?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that farmers are not getting a cut in their income, and so his allegation is wrong.
    Following are the details:

    (January 1962=100)

    Sub-group

    September, 1964

    December, 1964

    February, 1965

    Bread, flour, cereals, biscuits and cakes

    109

    112

    113

    Meat and bacon

    115

    115

    115

    Fish

    105

    109

    108

RAILWAY CLOSURES AND NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES' MANUFACTURING RESOURCES
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I will make a short statement on two aspects of policy in respect of railways, one of which affects other nationalised industries.
In my statement to the House on 4th November last, I explained that my policy on passenger closures was being developed in accordance with the Government's policy on national and regional planning. Now that regional economic planning councils and boards have been established for most of the country, I have decided to consult them about any proposed withdrawal of passenger services. Accordingly, as from today, where regional councils and boards exist they will be given full opportunity to advise me on the planning implications of any proposed closure for the regions with which they are concerned before I make a decision.
This arrangement will apply to all outstanding proposals published by the Railways Board on which I have not yet reached a decision and to all proposals which are published in the future. It will apply also to those not published, but referred to me to consider whether they are clearly unacceptable from the start under the special arrangement I announced in my previous statement.
This procedure will ensure that regional planning is not prejudiced by rail passenger closures and will ensure that, in those cases in which I decide that closures are justified, I have been able to take account of all relevant considerations.

1651
As the House knows, I have also undertaken to make a further statement on workshop policy. This involves much more than British Railways workshops, although these are the establishments about which hon. Members have expressed most concern. The Government are convinced that not only the British Railways Board but other nationalised industries should be free to employ and develop their manufacturing resources to the best effect. We intend, therefore, as opportunity arises, to introduce legislation to remove the statutory limitations which impede the nationalised industries.
The reorganisation of the railways workshops is now almost complete and their modernisation well advanced. The removal of the restrictions will enable these national assets to be employed to the fullest extent.
Mr. Powell: While commiserating with the right hon. Gentleman on having failed to stop the leak in his Department, so that the second part of the announcement which he has just made was made known to the House through the national Press this morning, may I ask him two questions about the two parts of his statement?
On the first, as another procedure, another stage of procedure, is now to be added, will he do his best to ensure that this does not further delay the taking of decisions when these proposals come forward, so that there is not an extension of uncertainty?
On the second part of his statement, does he realise that there can be no real competition between private enterprise, on the one hand, and, on the other, corporations which are financed on public credit and whose losses are met by the general taxpayer and that such bogus competition can give no indication of whether the nation's resources are being used to the best effect?
If he is determined to persist with this kind of legislation, will he at least give the assurance that these activities will be accounted for separately upon a basis which enables the results to be realistically judged and appreciated?
Mr. Fraser: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about leaks. I saw a little reference in one newspaper
1652
this morning to the second part of my statement and right away I resolved to do my best to see that Government security did not get quite as bad under the present Administration as it was under the last.
To come to the other two matters on which he addressed question to me: first, the other stage of procedure in regard to passenger closures. I should have thought that the other stage of procedure which I have mentioned is in keeping with the statement I made on 4th November last and is strictly in keeping with the promises which my party made to the electors before the last election.
It is even more important to get the right decision than to get a quick decision, although I do not envisage that the further consultation which I have mentioned will necessarily delay the decision which will be reached, because the consultation with the regional councils and boards will in most cases be made at the same time as the proposal for the withdrawal of the service is being considered under the procedure set out in the 1962 Act.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's point about the workshops' freedom, I would just like to tell him that we are concerned to see that the nation's resources are properly and fully employed, and are seen to be properly and fully employed. The nationalised industries are at present free to purchase from private enterprise. Private enterprise is not free to purchase from the nationalised workshops. There have been many occasions when the workshops could have supplied a need in the community by the proper utilisation of the nation's resources, but were prevented from doing so, in some cases, by the limitations imposed by the statutes and in other cases by the limitations imposed by my predecessor.
The assurance which the right hon. Gentleman sought is an assurance which I am sure he will seek further when the legislation is brought before the House.
Mr. Popplewell: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we on this side of the House welcome his statement and congratulate him on having made it?
To press him a little further, since he said that he will discuss the question of closures with the regional economic planning councils, do I take that to mean that he will discuss it not only with those

1653
councils which have already been set up, but also with the councils which are planned to cover certain areas but which have not yet been established? Would he also bear in mind that there are certain areas—for example, in East Anglia and the South-West—which are not covered by economic councils and that these are equally important from the closure point of view? Will he have a further look at this matter?
Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we welcome his decision to give full commercial freedom to the railway workshops? Will he ensure that railway management takes full advantage of the statement that he has made? Does he contemplate making a further statement about land, and also about the sundries traffic on the railways, which has been so grossly neglected in the Beeching programme but which can be a very useful revenue-producing unit?
Mr. Fraser: The Government have in mind the problem of land to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, as he knows, this is a matter that goes far beyond the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, or even of the Railways Board. It is a matter that must be dealt with more comprehensively and I should think that any announcement on it would come from one of my right hon. Friends.
I do not have it in mind at present to make a statement about the sundries traffic.
In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I shall consult the councils and boards in those parts of the country where they have been set up. The only part in which they have not been set up is the South-East. I will continue to have the advice of the Departments concerned—mainly, Housing and Local Government, Economic Affairs and the Board of Trade—and of all those people involved in the review that is being made of the South-East Study.
Mr. Webster: Does the Minister intend to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs who, in 1960, in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which was then dealing with the affairs of British Railways asked, as Question 1444:
"What you are saying is that"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As far as I can hear, that is a verbatim quotation from something, and that would be bad in a question, let alone on a statement.
Mr. Webster: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Did not the Minister's right hon. Friend then infer that prices quoted did not adequately cover overheads? Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us to what extent he intends to use the taxpayers' money to subsidise a nationalised industry against private industry?
Mr. Fraser: What I want to ensure is that the capital equipment provided with the taxpayers' money will be employed in the service of the nation.
Mr. Shinwell: Has not my right hon. Friend taken note of the fact that for many weeks now—indeed, many months—hon. Members opposite have, quite rightly and legitimately, asked that some restraint should be placed on the closure of branch lines? Now that he has satisfied them that the matter is to be properly reviewed, will he try to find an explanation for their protests?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister has any responsibility for finding explanations of that kind.
Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be widely welcomed throughout the country? Will he now seek powers to order the reopening of lines if this is advised by regional councils or boards, and if the permanent way is still in existence? Further, where boards do not yet exist, will he undertake not to authorise any further closures until councils or boards have been established? Finally, will he ensure that the information supplied to councils and boards by British Railways is factual and actual?
Mr. Fraser: I have no reason to believe that the Railways Board ever supplies information that is not, to the best of its knowledge, factual. [HON. MEMBERS: "oh."] I have no reason whatsoever to believe that. I must say that I think it monstrous to suggest that a great public corporation like the Railways Board will submit for the consideration of other public bodies deliberately inaccurate information.
I cannot undertake that no closure of a passenger service will take place until a

1655
council has been set up. The interests of those areas in which councils have not yet been set up are being safeguarded, I hope appropriately, by the Government Departments concerned, and I will consult those authorities before reaching a decision. But, at the end of the day, the responsibility for deciding whether or not consent will be given is mine, and I must be willing to take it, and not put it off to some time in the future when a regional council and board might be set up.
The hon. Gentleman referred to power to reopen lines already closed. I must say that I am not satisfied that I would be serving the interests of either British Railways or the nation if I were at present to seek power to restore services that have been withdrawn. I would not wish to commit myself to seeking such power merely on the advice of one regional council. I would clearly take into account any advice given to me by a regional council, but I think that it would be foolish of me now to commit myself to accept any such advice of this sort if it were given.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Darlington, the home of the railways? As I am sure that he is aware that the railway workshops in Darlington are under sentence of death at the end of 1966, may I ask when he will be in a position to make a statement about the future of railway workshops?
Mr. Fraser: I do not think that I will be making a statement as to the way in which the Railways Board will decide its responsibilities in regard to the expansion or contraction of individual workshops in the country This really is a responsibility of management which I must leave to the Railways Board.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Brigadier Terence Clarke: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech on 29th March in the Adjournment debate on Niven Craig, I said that Lord Stonham had visited Craig in prison and had taken an extreme interest in this prisoner. The noble Lord has now informed me that he has never visited Craig, nor seen him, nor spoken to him. Also, he has never written to Craig, nor has Craig written to him.
In these circumstances, I can only express my profound apologies to the noble Lord, and withdraw unreservedly any reference to him in this matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
  Brigadier Terence Clarke: Bill to provide for the making by employers of payments to employees in respect of redundancy; to establish a Redundancy Fund and to require employers to pay contributions towards that fund and to enable sums to be paid into that fund out of the Consolidated Fund; to provide for payments to be made out of the Redundancy Fund; to amend the Contracts of Employment Act 1963; to extend the jurisdiction of tribunals established under the Industrial Training, Act 1964 and to make further provision as to procedure in relation to such tribunals; to enable certain statutory provisions relating to compensation to be modified in consequence of the provision for payments in respect of redundancy; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Gunter; supported by Mr. Ross, Mr. Jay, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Cousins, Miss Herbison, and Mr. Diamond; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act 1899.
  I propose to detain the House for only a few moments in seeking leave to introduce a modest two-Clause Bill which will, I hope, bring our methods of testing anchors and chains for British ships into line with modern needs. At present the curious situation arises that under the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1899, all manufacturers of anchors and chain cables are required to send such material over a certain weight to proving houses that were established under that Act.
  The effect of that Act has been that firms manufacturing this equipment have to send it to these proving houses, possibly some considerable distance away, and possibly at quite considerable expense, even though those firms may very well have equipment on their own premises perfectly capable of being used for the purpose. To make matters even more complicated, these very same firms are entitled to use their own equipment in respect of the manufacture of anchors and chain cables for foreign order. A further complication at present is that foreign manufacturers of anchor and chain cables can supply them for British ships without complying with the requirements of the 1899 Act. Therefore, British manufacturers are placed at some considerable disadvantage against their foreign competitors in this regard.
  The modest Measure that I seek leave to introduce would repeal the 1899 Act and replace it by giving power to the Board of Trade to make rules which would provide for the testing, marking and certification of anchors and chain cables for use on ships registered in the United Kingdom. The requirements will
  1658
  be Just as stringent, but they will be enabled to be met in the firm"s own premises instead of the equipment having to be sent necessarily to the proving houses, as at present. It will continue to be done under proper supervision.
  Under the proposals that I would wish to introduce the responsibility will be placed on the master or owner of the ship to see that these requirements are met, as is the case with other types of equipment for shipping. It will, therefore, be applied to equipment bought from abroad and so rectify the disadvantage at present suffered by British manufacturers.
  I should say that these proposals have been long desired by a very wide range of interests concerned and there have been wide consultations about the matter over some years. The shipowners have sought for some time to get this amendment made. The main manufacturers have been anxious for this rectification so that they could use their own equipment if they desire. The Chamber of Shipping, the seamen's organisations, the Shipbuilding Conference, Lloyd's Register, the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, and the fishing interests have all been consulted and would welcome the proposals I seek to introduce.
  As far as I can see, this is a modest but useful way in which British manufacturers can be assisted and a rather out-of-date procedure brought up to date. I trust that the House will unanimously give me leave to introduce my Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Bagier, Mr. Snow, and Mr. William Wells.

  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES
  Brigadier Terence Clarke: Bill to make new provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act 1899, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 9th April and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66
  CLASS V

    VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £25,874,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; of the White Fish Authority and Scottish Committee; and of the Plant Variety Rights Office.—[£9,500,000 has been voted on account]
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Short],— put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

    AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL FARM PRICE REVIEW)
    3.56 p.m.
    Sir Martin Redmayne: I beg to move,
    That this House notes with regret that Her Majesty's Government have so conducted and concluded the Annual Farm Price Review that severe damage has been done to the confidence of the farming industry.
    The Motion puts into words a situation of which we are all unhappily aware. I say "unhappily" advisedly, for none of us, whether in opposition or in government, can view the present active discontent that is rife throughout the farming industry in any other spirit, although I must say that during Question Time I rather wondered whether one or two hon. Members opposite do not regard it with some pleasure.
    It was an interesting commentary on the Minister's Statement on the Price Review that there has not been seen for a long time in the House such an upsurge
    1660
    of hon. Members on this side seeking to put supplementary questions to the Minister. For that matter, not for a long time has a statement been received with such evidence of shocked surprise, almost of disbelief in the course of its making.
    It was evident that the Minister himself expected that reaction. He betrayed his expectation in that he largely avoided answering the questions which I, for one, put to him, but, instead, reeled off a string of defensive comparisons with previous Reviews. Of course, earlier Reviews have been disagreed, though never so violently as this one.
    The Minister knows—this came up again during Questions today, in respect of the milk settlement—that it is a weak defence simply to quote the figures for the increase in or reduction of guarantees without regard to the relevant statistics for each year of farm incomes, of costs, of the trends of production, and of the trend of the subsidy bill—particularly that, since it is accepted to be the common objective of farmers, of the Government and of all of us, to reduce it progressively.
    The Minister knows, equally, that this year the award is made in the face of the highest increase in costs for eight years and at a time when the subsidy bill has fallen sharply for the second year in succession, following sizeable reductions in the two years before that. On these facts alone, which show that so much success has been achieved in trying to get towards our objective, the farmer had grounds for optimism as to the outcome of the Review.
    Last year's settlement was held as being "electioneering". This has been said repeatedly by the Minister since he made his Statement, but it was, in fact, the proper culmination of a long struggle by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) and his predecessors right back to Lord Williams of Barnburgh and Lord Hudson, who laid the foundation of post-war agricultural planning, which was taken over by the
    Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is perfectly true. The Minister cannot in fairness deny it. It was a long struggle, sometimes against the tide of farming opinion, but more often with it, to fit a prosperous agriculture into the pattern of the post-war economy.

    1661
    Let me remind the House briefly of some of the stages of that struggle. The plans were laid in 1944 and there followed in due course, under the Labour Government, the 1947 Act, which both sides support, and what I might call the Williams era, a very successful era for the Minister of Agriculture, but, of course, a sellers' market of all sellers' markets. By the early 1950s the impetus of those years was failing and it fell to successive Conservative Governments to end rationing, to make food freely available to the consumer, to initiate a new emphasis on marketing, to replace the fixed-price system by deficiency payments and to give the long-term guarantees of the 1957 Act, as a partner to the 1947 Act, and to foster the long-term modernisation of agriculture and to start the small farmers schemes.
    This was a tremendous programme over the years and in a sense the result was that it had too much success, leading to a threat of over-production in some commodities and a subsidy bill that was acknowledged to be growing too fast. We do not blush for this policy. It was a creative policy and it gave an active impetus to the farming industry at a time when it was badly needed. From there, following the 1960 White Paper, with the full agreement of the Labour Party, we have moved into the era of the standard quantity. Whatever criticism there may be, and whatever second thoughts on this commodity or that, my right hon. Friends achieved a noteworthy improvement in the situation overall, and over the last four years the subsidy bill has fallen without any unreasonable check to productivity.
    I would remind the House of a sentence in the White Paper on Agriculture,Cmnd. 1249 of 1960, which was the pith of the whole of that policy, and, again, the Labour Party certainly did not dissent from it. The sentence reads:
    "Moreover, the Government and the Unions agree that, as the industry strengthens its competitive power and so advances towards its declared objective of reducing Exchequer support to the minimum practicable amount, it is right and proper that it should have the incentive and reward of an increase in its living standards."
    These were important words then. They are important words now when so much has been achieved. The industry has every right to feel aggrieved that the
    1662
    Government, in this Review, have not abided by the sentiments expressed in that White Paper.
    The Review last year, far from being electioneering, was a reasonable reward for a great deal of co-operative effort between agriculture and Government. It is vital that that effort should continue. It is hard to see how it can continue in the atmosphere now ruling. But if one is compelled to talk of electioneering, the Labour Party, or some part of it—for right hon. and hon. Members opposite certainly do not all speak with one voice on this matter—have been electioneering in agriculture for a very long time.
    Who would blame them? This is politics and it is not expressly their fault that agriculture is far too near the centre of politics. This is the fault of the system and many farmers and many politicians would wish that it could be otherwise. But if one is to talk of electioneering, what matters to farmers and to us is that the performance of Government when they arrive in office should match their electoral promise.
    Here lies the root cause of the sharp reaction to this Review both in the House and in the farming world. I said that farming was too close to politics. What I meant by that is that it is a perfectly understandable view, held quite widely, that the Annual Review becomes too easily a dogfight. I have been interested for a long time in the possibility of a change and I would listen carefully, and would request my right hon. and hon. Friends to listen, to propositions for a longer-term review, but, of course, such a review must abide, and continue to abide, by the principles of the 1947 and 1957 Acts.
    Experimentally, it could be biennial or triennial, leading up, if it should prove to be a successful experiment, to a five-year period. Any such experiment must contain provisions to ensure that contact between farmers and the Government is maintained—because this is of great value to the Review system and to the farming community. It is possible that there could be—and this could be discussed—some form of review tribunal which could meet as any situation arose during the review period.

    1663
    Any such system, of course, must leave to the Government and to the House the last word, since the taxpayer's money is involved, but at least I see no reason why these propositions should not be discussed. I believe that if they were sensibly discussed, with open minds on both sides, they might well lead to a system which would be infinitely preferable to all concerned. I have no doubt that at some point in his reply the Minister will say that he is also Minister of Food. We have had this from him three times already today
    Mr. David Ensor: Why not?
    Sir M. Redmayne: And the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has a duty to the consumer.
    This is a very worthy argument. It sounds very grand, but it is a bad point in relation to the level of guarantees because in real truth the higher the guarantee the greater the production. Therefore, the result must be a trend towards lower rather than higher consumer prices. I agree that the Minister's duty lies towards the taxpayer, and on that and on the need to reduce the subsidies bill we all agreed—Government, Opposition and the farmers.
    On the question of milk, for which the Minister still has direct responsibility for the price, the right hon. Gentleman's attitude again does not ring very true. He says cautiously that the price will be up by ½d. a pint for four months, but I doubt whether he will express much hope that it will be reduced thereafter. If it is not reduced, how much wiser he would have been to take one bite at the cherry and given himself room for manoeuvre in this Review.
    Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I am sure that at this stage the right hon. Gentleman would like to say whether he dissociates himself not only from the threats made by sections of the farming community to deprive the community of milk, including children and nursing mothers, but also certain threats, which are perhaps more serious, against the person of the Minister himself. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to say that these wild threats cause alarm on both sides of the
    1664
    House and he dissociates himself and his party from any of them.
    Sir M. Redmayne: I do not accept for a moment that the terms in which the hon. Member expresses the present situation are in any way accurate or true. I have said publicly that the farming community will achieve its objects very much better by constitutional methods of discussion.
    The Minister said that the Review must be accepted as economically necessary but that it contains a long-term policy. Its items of long-term policy include help for small farmers and stress on co-operation, on research, on marketing and on amalgamation. These, after all, are all evolutions of what we on this side of the House have set in train. The Minister knows in his heart that this Review is a holding operation, and a severe one at that, but it hides a great deal which has yet to be decided and disclosed.
    The first page of the White Paper gives much cause for doubt about the future. It opens with a sentence which is acceptable enough:
    "Agriculture is one of our biggest industries, and, as such, must take its proper place in the national economic development plan which is now being prepared."
    I should have thought that that sentence was redundant. The Government and their spokesmen are on record time and time again as stressing their allegiance to the Agriculture Acts in which the proper place of agriculture is most clearly defined. Indeed, they repeat their support for those Acts in the White Paper.
    In the broader and more topical field, is there any doubt disclosed as to the rôle of agriculture in the statement of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in the debate last year:
    "Our balance of payments problem would look absolutely impossible but for the tremendous expansion for which the industry is responsible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 1046.]
    The Minister himself, after the election—to this extent, this is more significant still as he was then in office—said that, in view of the balance of payments problem, he would back the demand of the National Farmers' Union for a sensible expansion of the home market. Does he suggest that the N.F.U. has not been sensible in these matters? These words are important, particularly the words of the

    1665
    Minister himself after the election, because they showed, or seemed to show, that the Government had considered the balance of payments point in relation to farming with great care, had overridden the arguments against it—the arguments are legion and are put from many sources to the Government—and had come to a firm decision, which the Minister was making public.
    Yet the second sentence of the Review leaves us in the air:
    "The Government will, therefore, be considering in this context what contribution agriculture can best make to national economic growth".
    This is a very different kettle of fish. I suspect that "Farmer George", who spoke so eloquently at Swaffham, in 1963, and again in the debate last year, is now completely "Mr. Economist Brown", and farming is in the melting pot. The economists have hailed this proposition as commendable, but, inevitably, it produces a loss of confidence in an industry in which confidence has ever been and, perhaps, will ever be, hard to come by. Inevitably, also, this pending consideration of agriculture's rôle puts a question-mark against the objective of the Review.
    The next sentence in the Review reads—there is a good deal of this sort of thing on the first page:
    "… the Government have reached conclusions on certain lines of … development"
    and it is claimed that the Review is based on these.
    In paragraph 3 we read:
    "… a primary objective … must be to encourage growth in productivity through:— (a) the maintenance of stability"—
    But at what level, after further consideration?
    The next reference is to
    "the further progressive introduction of technological improvement …"
    We agree well enough about that.
    Next:
    "the encouragement to farmers generally to obtain the benefits of scale".
    I ask that the House note the words "farmers generally".
    The final reference is to
    ''the consequential further release of resources for use elsewhere in the nation's economy."
    The first question one asks about those four subheads is: what is meant by
    1666
    "farmers generally"? I take it to mean obtaining the benefits of scale over all. Next, what resources will consequentially be released? Resources of machinery, certainly, from amalgamations, and so on. But is it also meant to refer to further men from among employees and employers, the farmers? If land, what land? These are all most important questions, and they really put in the shadow the items in the Review which are claimed to be long-term, the Small Farmer Scheme, marketing, research, and the like.
    For the answers, we have to wait to learn what contribution, in the Government's view, after further consideration, agriculture can best make to the economy. For the present, we have only uncertainty in these matters. Yet the Minister, in the past, has been, very properly, what I might call a long-term man. In an interview last May, he said that one of his first jobs, if he were Minister of Agriculture, would be "to thrash out a five-year or more policy for agriculture", and in last year's debate, with reference to milk, he said that he would like to see a "five-year policy".
    Is l¼d. a gallon for milk against costs increased certainly by over 1d.—we cannot find out precisely what the figure is—to be classed as part of a long-term policy in accordance with the Minister's statements last year? It is in one sense, but a sense which does no credit to the right hon. Gentleman who has expressed so much concern for the small farmer. Many will find it hard to carry on. The Minister has said—he repeated it today—that he is fearful of over-production. The fall in the dairy herd has been checked and production is rising a little, but the Minister knows very well that l¼d. will not check the flight from dairying. Indeed, from such information as we can secure, it seems that it is already gathering way again. I suggest, therefore, that his fears about over-production have very little foundation.
    One may then fairly ask whether the long-term policy in respect of milk is to cosset the small farmer with grants, which, in any case, he will not obtain for many months, but to drive him out of milk? The income from milk is very often for many men much more accurately described as the wage-packet

    1667
    rather than the profit. This would be a poor trick, and I think more of the right hon. Gentleman than to believe that it is likely to be his policy.
    The answer lies elsewhere, with his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the 1d. is too little. I believe that he had some better figure in his mind and he was badgered, bullied, coaxed and cajoled by his colleagues on the Treasury Bench until they beat his judgment into the ground.
    Sir Douglas Glover: Sold down the river.
    Sir M. Redmayne: He knew that he would have difficulty with his Review. He knew, also, as we all know, that milk is very often the psychological factor which holds the balance between acceptance, however grudging, and an open break.
    The Minister lost that battle. I express the hope that, if he has another and, possibly, more bitter battle to fight on the consideration of agriculture in relation to the economic plan, he will die in the last ditch for what he believes to be right—and or politicians the last ditch is resignation.
    Mr. Robert Maxwell: Did not the previous Administration, in their Annual Reviews, except for election years, deal with the farming community even worse than the present Review? As we may be having a General Election, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister of Agriculture is being most brave as well as most handsome in his rewards to farmers?
    Sir M. Redmayne: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I dealt with that point fully before he came into the Chamber.
    So far, the Minister has convinced no one that he is right on milk. I realise that there are confidential matters here, but it is a pity, in this situation, when tempers are high, that he will not support his argument by disclosing the agreed figure for costs. He has, apparently, made some reference to a figure of 6d. brought into the discussion by the N.F.U.—this appears to be so, if the reports are correct—and if he could make that—
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I have not revealed what the National Farmers' Union submitted to me during the Review discussions. It would have been very wrong for me to do so. I completely deny what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Sir M. Redmayne: I accept what the Minister says without reservation, but I hope he will understand that I am taking this from what appeared to be perfectly straightforward reports in the Press. However, I think it a pity, as there is so much argument on the point, that he cannot tell us what the figure of costs may be.
    Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, there could well be a milk crisis this year if we have unfavourable weather conditions. Those are not my words. They may have a familiar ring to the Minister. He spoke them himself last year. They did not turn out to be true, but they were uttered with reference to last year's increase of 2½d. Since then we have had a good farming year and the position is slightly improved. Yet, as we know, 5,000 dairy farmers have gone out of milk, and who knows what this summer will be like and, much more importantly, what fall in the dairy herd there may be in the next six or 12 months? I hope that the Minister will see the red light when it shows and act swiftly.
    Milk brings me to beef, and in that phrase lies another good argument in favour of generous treatment for dairying and the maintenance of the herd. It also highlights another reversal of the right hon. Gentleman's beliefs. He is on record as having said that he would like to see a long-term flexible plan for meat, and if for meat, certainly for beef production. There is no need for me to labour the point. I have seen no opinion expressed that 4s. on beef will, in the present state of the market, have any long-term effect on production. The extension of calf subsidies, though useful enough, cannot be regarded as a major factor.
    The Minister will know that the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation has already forecast a reduction, not an increase, of 3s. 8d. per cwt. arising from the revision of the scales of supplements and abatements; that is, a reduction in respect of

    1669
    the price as it is at present. I am certain that the Minister ought to revert to what was his expressed opinion and should have given something which would have cost nothing in the Review—a long-term assurance that production of beef will be supported. I hope that he can give that assurance today. If he does not, we must assume that his hands are tied by other considerations yet to be decided.
    No one can really say that the cut in fertiliser subsidies is particularly happy at present, when production of beef is required, and particularly perhaps because costs in the fertiliser industry are rising and, therefore, there is no reason to hope that there could happen what happened before when the subsidy has been cut—when there has been a corresponding reduction in price.
    Turning to cereals, I am suspicious that the Minister has made the maximum cut in barley and wheat not because it is wholly necessary, but because it gives him £11 million under the alleged shelter of agreements made by the previous Government. The agreements guaranteed that the minimum import price arrangements shall not result in an appreciable distortion of the pattern of trade. Those words come from the agreement. But is there really an appreciable distortion of the pattern of trade at present.
    Last year, 1964, was a good year with a good crop, and the crop has been well absorbed and the forecast demand is high. Imports are down below the average of the last three years, admittedly, and that is the factor which comes into these agreements. But how great has been the pressure from overseas suppliers? As we all know, they have had very good markets elsewhere. What has come into the country has been above the minimum import price. In those circumstances, I do not think that the Minister should have taken the view that he was in a situation in which a reduction of this sort was in any way compulsory.
    I would ask what pressures were brought to bear on the Minister by the foreign suppliers and to what extent he sought to resist them? Or did he not try very hard? Did he take what seemed to him to be the easy way out with what he thought to be a good excuse and giving something of a bonus which he could use to offset other parts of the Price Review?
    1670
    In support of that, I quote a statement Which the right hon. Gentleman made in the House rather than in the White Paper:
    "Cereal production has risen to a very high level … In consequence, we are obliged, under the cereals agreements on minimum import prices made by the previous Conservative Administration, to take remedial action with the purpose of restoring a fair and reasonable balance between home-grown nd imported cereals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 1289.]
    I think that that sentence in the statement was something of a cheat. The Minister has since rather resiled from it. He has admitted now that he was very much more party to the agreements than the statement would imply. Although some cut was necessary, I doubt very much whether it was necessary to go to the maximum. I doubt whether this is a very good precedent to be created in the first year of a new scheme. The Minister ought to have been very much more careful to see that he gave the scheme a fair start.
    I will now deal briefly with some of the other more general propositions in the Review. We do not criticise the schemes in aid of the small farmers. As I have said, the awards in the Review hit them hard and they will have a struggle to survive to reap the benefits of the schemes. I could say that it seems fair to say:
    "The Minister seems to suffer from schizophrenia, wishing, on the one hand, to give aid to small farmers, while, on the other, wishing to squeeze them Out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 953.]
    That quotation betrays itself. I would not use the word "schizophrenia", because I am always afraid of not being able to pronounce it. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words in the debate last year. I hope that they rest firmly on his head.
    This Minister's schizophrenia would seem to be between himself as Minister of Agriculture and himself as a Member of the Cabinet. I think that that is the secret of all that has been going on during the last few weeks. The farmers would prefer him to remain permanently in the rôle of farmers' friend for which he cast himself before the election. It is a rôle which suits him very much better.
    Nor do we quarrel with the Government's present proposals for agricultural credit. Of course, no one can say that

    1671
    there is as yet any prospect of obtaining credit at reasonable terms. [Interruption.] I do not think that hon. Members opposite should intervene about that. Once again, too much was read into the statement and, once again, performance lags behind what appeared to be the promise. I should like to know what the Labour Party means by "reasonable terms". Does it mean special preferential terms, or was it just putting in a good phrase for the sake of political advantage?
    It is a mistake in any walk of commerce or industry to believe that an inexhaustible supply of credit is necessarily the only answer to every problem. There can be over-trading in farming as in any other competitive enterprise. What matters more than the ability to obtain credit is the ability to service and repay the loan. That entails a far greater prospect of the retention of adequate profits than would seem to be envisaged in the Review or likely to arise from the longer-term consideration of agriculture's rôle which is promised in the White Paper.
    Of course, we support any reasonable effort to improve marketing. By too slow degrees, every branch of commerce and industry in this country is abandoning the Victorian concept of selling and is realising that the problem is not how to sell what one produces, but how to produce what, by market research, one believes one can sell. As a nation, we have been appallingly slow to learn this lesson. In many respects the farming industry is showing a lead which others might follow.
    In passing, I would note with some surprise that there is no mention at all in the White Paper of the World Food Plan, on which so many columns of HANSARD were used in the debate last year and on which the Minister of Housing and Local Government, at a Labour conference, expressed himself in terms so glowingly optimistic for the future of agriculture that it must have hung like a millstone round the right hon. Gentleman's neck ever since. He said:
    "A Labour Government would say to the farmers of the West, 'Produce all you can: we will get rid of it because the world needs it '."
    1672
    They were fine words, but fine words butter no parsnips. We know that Dr. Boerma has had talks with the Minister of Overseas Development, and presumably the Government are continuing support for the World Food Programme, which was initiated by the previous Government. No doubt we are to understand that the more lavish promises of the pre-election era are also to be forgotten.
    The amalgamation of farms which has loomed so much in the Minister's utterances since the Review is given a very cursory paragraph in the White Paper:
    "The Government consider that there should be arrangements to encourage on a voluntary basis the amalgamation of such land"—
    land of marginal significance—
    "into viable and well equipped holdings."
    There is little more than pious hope there. We have read that such land could be purchased by the proposed Lands Commission. At what price? Would it be farmed by the Commission, or sold to those better able to farm it, and at what price? Would it be sold to those most conveniently adjacent? If they were also in too small a way, would they get the necessary capital to play their part in the amalgamation?
    Equally, if the scheme is to be voluntary, on what basis is the volunteer to be encouraged? Will the Government consider a scheme on the continental pattern which will give specific inducements to retire? This is an interesting proposition. Before we can judge it, we shall require something more specific than that short paragraph in the White Paper and I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen will tell us something about it.
    In all these matters, in all the long-term items, such as they are, in the economic plan, I would like to be assured—as the industry must certainly be assured—that farming will not be the poor relation in social and industrial planning. The Review, by its terms at this time, has brought farming to a cross-roads. Much has to be considered in the national economic plan in the broad sense. The plan must take into account the population explosion and the need to house and to employ between 10 and 20 million more people at the turn of the century.

    1673
    Coupled with these things are the problems of agriculture, a major industry in its own right, by the Government's own admission—an industry now beset with new problems arising from the incidence of intensive farming and the loss of valuable farm land, but, nevertheless, with a rising productivity record which often puts other industries to shame. The more often that is said, the better.
    It may be that the pattern of farming will have to change over the next 10 years, that land used for farming may be less than what it is now and that the process of amalgamations, streamlining and intensification will be forced upon us by events to an ever-increasing degree. It may be that the rural pattern will change drastically. But is it too much to ask that, in all this unpheaval, agriculture should be an equal partner in planning and that the United Kingdom should not as a whole be condemned to becoming a vast suburbia because the rural voice is deliberately disregarded by planning which is urban and industrial in its conception?
    The fault of this Review lies in the blow it has struck at the farmers' confidence at just the time when the future holds so many imponderables as to be in itself unsettling. It is clear that the Government have plans for agriculture that are yet to be disclosed. But is it clear that those plans will take fully into account the fact that rural England is still a vital and indispensable partner of industrial England, vital to its economy and vital to its health.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: And to the health of Scotland.
    Sir M. Redmayne: Including the health of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and of Scotland.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: And of Wales.
    Sir M. Redmayne: And of Wales, also. The hon. Gentleman has successfully destroyed my peroration.
    This is an important question. I know that the Minister himself admits it to be so. I ask him to fight for agriculture and to say that he will fight for it. If he does, he may in time regain the confidence of the farmers. At present, he has lost it almost entirely.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I am asked by Mr. Speaker to announce that he has selected the Amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and the names of other right hon. Gentlemen, and no other.
    4.35 p.m.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Frederick Peart): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "with" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "satisfaction the Government's decisions following the Annual Farm Price Review which in its opinion are fair to both producers and consumers; and welcomes the Government's constructive proposals for the longer term future of the agricultural industry".
    I want to say, first, how much I welcome the opportunity to debate, in a calm and constructive way, this year's Annual Price Review and the Government's agricultural policy. Too much of the talk of the past two weeks has been highly emotional and has paid little or no regard to the facts.
    Even the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) denigrated the activities of a very famous Minister of Agriculture, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman said that the Agriculture Act, 1947, was the responsibility of some of Lord Williams' predecessors. I believe that it was the creation of Lord Williams and that it was the post-war Labour Government's responsibility. Part I of the Act was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition in Standing Committee.
    I welcome this debate because it is plain that a very broad band of responsible public opinion supports the Review. I could give many examples, but let me quote only two comments. The Daily Telegraph, which is not a notoriously Left-wing newspaper, said:
    "Mr. Peart is right to stand firm on the need to balance the farmers' interests with those of the consumer and taxpayer in our stretched economy."
    The Daily Telegraph wrote two leaders on the subject and both supported basically the policy that I am putting forward.
    The Times commented:
    "In its main lines, the Review augurs well for the new Government's agricultural policy."
    I could go on with quotations from the Financial Times, the Economist, The Guardian, the Statist, and the Observer.

    1675
    Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may decry these papers, but they represent a large section of informed opinion. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know in their hearts that, in its immediate aspects, the Review is just and equitable to the farmers and to the community as a whole and that, in its longer term aspects, it outlines a progressive policy for the benefit of farming in the future.
    But rather than admit this, the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe and some of his colleagues have felt bound to work up a synthetic indignation, although it passes my comprehension how the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)—I am sorry that he is not here—could sign the Opposition Motion after all his activities over the past few years and what he did for the confidence of the farming community. The right hon. Member for Bexley utterly destroyed their confidence by trying to enter the Common Market on terms which would have thrown away the 1947 and 1957 Acts without compensating safeguards for the British farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite do not like the truth.
    However, right hon. and hon. Members opposite are in a dilemma. Those who, with so little regard to the facts, attack the Review should explain why they did not similarly attack much tougher awards made by the last Government. For example, this year we are asking farmers to bear two-thirds of their increased costs and reimbursing them for one-third.
    But in 1962, farmers had to absorb the whole of their cost increases of £19 million and suffer a further cut of £11 million in the guarantees. There was not a great outcry from hon. Members opposite against the administration of their own party then. Perhaps they can explain why they sat mute and inglorious and why some of them even welcomed the determinations then. Why the outcry now? I can only assume that they can be accused of playing politics with a great industry.
    This brings me to the interesting advertisement of the National Farmers' Union, which many hon. Members will have read in the last few days, and to the brief which the N.F.U. has supplied to all
    1676
    hon. Members. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have been so naëve as to accept these figures so uncritically. These advertisements form a scathing attack on the previous Administration. Time and time again the farmers refer to their 1 per cent. increase in real incomes over 12 years. Who is responsible?
    I think that it is fair to say that the picture painted in the advertisement is not as bad as has been suggested, for if a somewhat different period had been chosen, the figures would have been rather different. For example, over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the real income of the industry of about 17 per cent. But whatever actual figures one takes, the criticisms of the farmers form a telling indictment not of this Government, but of the Tory Administrations over the previous 12 years who failed to deal with the fundamental problems of the industry.
    Let me deal with the incomes of farmers and turn for a moment to the general question of the income of the industry.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie Mr. George Y. Mackie (Caithness and Sutherland) rose—
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity. I have answered many Questions about the Review and I have not shirked any. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech.
    The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe has called attention to statements and assurances of support for farming by myself and my right hon. Friends before the election. We stand by those statements. We want the income of the industry to improve on a lasting basis. It is now the highest ever, and there is no reason why it should not go even higher. In particular, we would like to see an improvement in the incomes of those sections of the industry which are in particular need, but we cannot be expected to solve the industry's problems after less than six months in office, especially in the light of the very difficult national economic circumstances which we have inherited.
    Nevertheless, our award this year of plus £10 million gives the farmers an opportunity to increase their net income further next year. I again quote the
    Daily Telegraph.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Oh.
    Mr. Peart: Why not? Do not let us run down the Daily Telegraph. In view of his experience, apart from pig producing, the hon. Gentleman should be the last to do so. The Daily Telegraph said:
    "Apart from Election years, the award compares favourably with those made in recent Annual Reviews."
    Hon. Members who are objective and sensible will see when they compare this with previous reviews over the last eight, nine or 10 years that the Daily Telegraph is abot t right.
    Admittedly, we have asked the farmers to bear a considerable part of their increased costs, but in the present national economic circumstances, despite what hon. Members opposite say, we must ask that of every industry.
    Hon. Members: The Post Office?
    Mr. Peart: Many of the criticisms—
    Hon. Members: The Post Office?
    Mr. Peart: Many of the criticisms which I have received—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will not even let me finish my sentence. Many of the criticisms which I have received say that farmers
    must be recouped for all their costs, but in our present circumstances no industry can expect to work on a cost-plus system, and agriculture cannot be an exception.
    However, in considering the income problem it is necessary to be clear that the figures of overall income used in the Review, and quoted by the farmers, indicate only the trend of the overall income position in agriculture. What the figures do not show is how that income is spread throughout the industry, and this is an aspect of fundamental importance if we are to find a long-term solution to the problems which we are facing.
    I therefore want to spend a few minutes on analysing the problem. The right hon. Gentleman tried to do this in part of his speech, and I give him credit for it. I want to analyse the split of the industry into its different parts, as has been done in broad outline in paragraph 6 of the Review White Paper.
    Mr. J. M. L. Prior Mr. J. M. L. Prior (Lowestoft) rose—
    Mr. Peart: Let me emphasise—
    Mr. Prior Mr. Prior rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) must resume his seat.
    Mr. Peart: Let us analyse the industry. About half of our 450,000 holdings produce only about 10 per cent. of the industry's output and consist for the most part of small acreages, generally well under 20 acres. Even if we doubled or trebled the level of the guaranteed prices, we should not be able to ensure an adequate full-time livelihood for the occupiers of most of these holdings. Fortunately, most of them are part-time and have sources of income outside farming.
    About one-quarter of our holdings consist of full-time farms of up to 125 acres. These are the small and medium-sized farm businesses giving full-time employment to one or two men. They are the farms to which, in the first instance, we are directing additional help, because they have a potential for progress. With the help which we are giving to improve farm management and in other ways, many farmers on these holdings will be able to increase their incomes substantially and so obtain a satisfactory livelihood. Some may not be able to do so and we shall be considering other ways of dealing with the problems which they raise.
    There remains the last quarter of our holdings. These holdings are in a very different category. They include the largest farms and produce about 70 per cent. of the industry's total output. I can best indicate the main features of this crucial holdings by some figures which relate to England and Wales. About 30 per cent. of all holdings, or 100,000 out of the 335,000, comprise about three-quarters of the agricultural land, produce about three-quarters of the milk, beef and sheep and nearly 90 per cent. of the cereals. The extent to which a relatively small number of farms dominate the general picture is shown by the fact that about one-quarter of all the wheat, barley, potatoes and sugar beet grown in England and Wales comes from less than 1½ per cent. of the holdings, about 4,600 holdings.

    1679
    From this analysis it will be clear that it is a mistake to regard agriculture as one single unit. We must consider the problems and needs of the different parts of the industry. It was this failure to analyse the different problems of the different sections of the industry which was the mistake of the previous Administration. Hon. Members who have studied the problem will accept my analysis and agree that the previous Administration paid too little regard to where help was most needed.
    The bigger and more efficient farmers, who account for most of our production, were receiving most of the subsidy payments and found it profitable to expand. Exchequer subsidies consequently increased. For this reason, right hon. Gentlemen opposite found it necessary to introduce for one commodity after another standard quantity or other regulatory devices to check the cost of the Exchequer bill. This was done for milk in 1954, potatoes in 1959, pigs in 1961, eggs in 1963 and cereals in 1964. I do not say that these steps were unnecessary under the Agricultural policies of our predecessors, because the country could not have afforded to go on finding more and more money from the taxpayer or the consumer.
    But the effect has been that as productivity has increased in the most efficient section of the industry production has expanded above the standard quantities. This has automatically depressed the price for all producers. For many commodities an undue increase in the guaranteed price, which triggered off an expansion in production by the bigger and more efficient producers, would merely have the effect of depressing producers' prices and hurting those who are most in need of help.
    The nation cannot afford the vast increase in Exchequer and consumer expenditure which would be involved in abolishing standard quantities or in raising them substantially. I hope that hon. Members will see the wisdom of what I am emphasising. These restraints need to stay until we have been able to encourage the improvements in the productivity, organisation and structure of the industry which will get us out of the dilemma with which we are faced. This is what we are seeking to do.
    1680
    The across-the-board approach of the previous Government does not make the best use of Exchequer expenditure in support of agriculture. The right way is to look at the industry in its component parts and to give more help where it is most needed and can do most good. Our policy is to supplement the general support provided by the price guarantees through schemes of direct support where it can do most to maintain a stable and efficient industry. In other words, we are tackling the low income problem at its roots. I was glad to see The Times today took exactly the same line, and I hope that hon. Members opposite have read what it said.
    I come to commodities and, first, milk. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe spoke about lack of confidence in the industry. I hope that he will bear in mind that the price of dairy cows is rising. In recent months they have been selling at higher prices than ever before. I do not accept that there is lack of confidence in the industry. The commercial dairy farmer takes a much more objective view than hon. Members opposite.
    Against this background, I should like to speak about this year's Price Review decisions. Milk is the most important. I admit that the decision on milk was the most difficult of all. If anyone does not think that decision difficult, he is a fool. It is not a case of just simply giving, as some farmers have demanded, and still are demanding, an extra 6d. a gallon—an extra £50 million on the housewife. We must balance trends of supply and trends of demand; we must balance the interests of the producer and the interests of the consumer. The decision requires a considerable degree of cool and unemotional judgment.
    Let us begin with the facts. Production exceeds liquid consumption by about 750 million gallons. There is, therefore, a reserve of about 45 per cent. over our liquid consumption requirements. The number of dairy farmers has been declining steadily for the past decade and continues to do so. But this reflects a structural change in the dairying industry The important thing which I want to stress is that the decline of the national dairy herd, which had been taking place for a year or two, has been halted. The fall in production in 1963–64 has been reversed, and every week from last

    1681
    November onwards has shown a higher production than the corresponding week a year before.
    In the face of all these facts, the Government decided that the right balance would be maintained if the dairy farmer, after taking into account all his increased costs, was then given a bit more profit in addition. The dairy farmer's price has been effectively increased by nearly 10 per cent. in the past two years. Again, I say to those who attack this year's increase of 1d. per gallon as derisory, "Why did you not attack the awards in every year up to last year, since this year's increase is bigger than any of them?" Why have hon. Members opposite not done this?
    Why did not the Government give in to the farmers' demands to be given much more on milk? I have already explained that the increase we did give will increase profitability. I have already explained that we have a reserve of production of 750 million gallons over our liquid requirements. Those who talk of the rationing of milk know they are being deliberately alarmist, and that the facts do not support them.
    Too big an increase in the guaranteed price could easily lead to a flood of milk surplus to what is needed for the liquid market. The lower prices received for this surplus would reduce the average price received by the farmer. Farmers will remember that as recently as 1962–63, when there was a surplus of 840 million gallons, the pool price was 34d. per gallon, nearly 4d. less than the guaranteed price. With the better balance of supply and demand achieved since then, and with the increase in the guaranteed price, farmers were receiving a pool price of 38½d. per gallon in 1964–65, even before this year's increase of ld. per gallon.
    None of us wants to get production right out of balance again. The small farmer is the one who would suffer most from the over-stimulation of milk production. Often his opportunities for expanding his milk production are limited, but he would have to bear the full brunt of the reduced pool price. Therefore, too big an increase in the guaranteed price would have hit the housewife who would have to pay more for her milk, in the long run the farmer would have lost by
    1682
    the fall in the pool price, and it would have been bad for the national economy, too, in that it would be a waste of resources.
    The increase we have given represents a fair reward to all reasonably efficient dairy farmers. But we recognise that some smaller milk producers have low incomes. We are, therefore, giving direct help to improve their position. We are doing this through the change in the character of the Small Farmer Scheme and its extension to 40,000 more farmers, many of whom will be milk producers. They will benefit too from the extension of the calf subsidy and the increase in its rate. They will also benefit from the help we are giving for agricultural credit.
    Let me deal with another commodity—eggs.
    Mr. William Yates Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin) rose—
    Mr. Peart: In this case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Windy."] I am not windy.
    Mr. John Farr: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to read non-stop from a prepared Ministry brief without taking any notice whatsoever of the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite in order, and, indeed, not unusual, for an hon. or right hon. Gentleman to take no notice of the feeling he is arousing on the other side of the House, and hon. and right hon. Members traditionally may make use of copious notes.
    Mr. Peart: I think that right hon. Members opposite will know that this is a statement which has been carefully prepared and which will be read outside. I am trying to give the House figures and to present the facts. Hon. Members can make their speeches later. I have not shirked any questions or criticisms. It has been a common practice of some back bench Members to use this as a deliberate device to put a Minister off, and I am not going to fall for it.
    Mr. William Yates Mr. William Yates rose—
    Mr. Peart: If I thought that a responsible Conservative would like to ask me a question, I should allow him to do so, but I do not regard the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)

    1683
    as being responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition Front Bench can intervene at any time.
    Let us look at eggs. In the poultry industry there have been particularly marked developments in the technology of production. Poultry flocks have been getting bigger. These changes have led, and are still leading, to big reductions in costs among efficient producers. They have also caused an expansion in production and a big increase in Exchequer subsidy. As hon. Members know, this subsidy is now running at over £33 million. This is a considerable amount of money.
    Here again, surplus production drives down market prices and, therefore, producer prices. We had to try to ensure that we did not encourage another big surplus. Anything less than the cut which we have made of 1d. per dozen would have been irresponsible. I therefore ask right hon. Members opposite whether, in these circumstances, they would have done differently.
    Mr. William Yates: On a point of order. Would it be within the rules of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the Minister, when making a speech like this, to issue it in the OFFICIAL REPORT the
    day before?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that hon. Members will not interrupt a serious debate with bogus points of order.
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member's intervention proves my earlier point. I am prepared to give way to anyone who makes a sensible contribution.
    Mr. Timothy Kitson Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks) rose—
    Mr. Peart: Does the hon. Member wish to ask a sensible question?
    Mr. Kitson: Yes.
    Mr. Peart: Then I give way to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Kitson: Having disagreed with a lot of what the Minister has said, I am grateful to him for giving way.
    I hope that before he leaves the question of milk, he will mention the manufacturing trade of the milk industry,
    1684
    because it would be quite wrong to consider only liquid milk and not the manufacturing side. I and many hon. Members have constituents who are engaged in the production of butter and cream, for example.
    Mr. Peart:I am glad that I gave way, because that was sensinble contribution. Obviously, in the 45 per cent. reserve which I have mentioned, cream and milk for cheese have also been taken into account. There is no need to panic about milk production in view of the fact that there is a 45 per cent. reserve. I agree, however, that we have to bear in mind also dairy products, which come within this section. This was taken into account.
    I have mentioned eggs and the large subsidy and the reason we took action. I ask hon. Members opposite what other action could have been taken? Mention has been made of the changes in the industry, but, here again, what we need is orderly marketing. This is a problem which we are discussing with the farmers' unions and with the Egg Marketing Board. I hope that we may be able to reach an agreed conclusion soon.
    The picture concerning beef, to which the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred, is different. We find ourselves in a situation in which home production of beef is not contributing as much as it could to our requirements; I accept this. However, we will not rush to the opposite extreme. Our aim is a moderate expansion in production. Beef is inevitably a long-term enterprise and we are determined to give producers all encouragement. Hence the range of measures we have taken which will help the rearer and feeder.
    I emphasise that we have raised the guaranteed price. We have increased the calf subsidy rate and extended the subsidy so that it is paid on heifers of dairy breeds when they are slaughtered for beef. And we have increased the rate and the stocking ratio for the hill cow subsidy. Altogether, these measures come to approximately £8 million, which is important, adding 6s. on the guaranteed price.
    We believe that these steps will provide the incentive for the expansion we want in beef production—without the

    1685
    danger of over-supply after, say, another four-year period. Again, I would like to know just what right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have done in the circumstances.
    I was asked about pigs and I should like to say just one sentence—
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: Before he leaves the subject of beef, will the Minister say whether he has looked into the future—as he believes in planning, I am sure that he must have done—and whether he considers that there is any possibility of an over-supply of beef in four years" time?
    Mr. Peart: I am looking into the future. Obviously, the market could change. There has been a strong demand because of the European and world conditions and high prices in this country, and we have faced a shortage because of curtailment of imports. I am looking at the long-term question and, therefore, what I have done immediately is right. But I also want to think in terms of marketing, which is linked to this question, and the creation of a statutory meat commission which would help the producer from a long-term point of view.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside) rose—
    Mr. Peart: Will my hon. Friend wait a moment so that I may complete my reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), of the Liberal Party, who is a responsible farmer? The hon. Member will, I think, agree that to link a guaranteed price policy and marketing is the right way to approach the problem.
    Mr. Winterbottom: In view of the need for the production of more cattle for home consumption and the increase in the subsidy for heifers, will my right hon. Friend consider seriously whether there should be a limitation on the sale abroad of heifers which have been eligible for the subsidy?
    Mr. Peart: That is another problem. I have watched carefully the increase in exports to Europe and elsewhere and do not see that these represent any immediate danger to our own meat supply
    1686
    position. I hope, therefore, that this question will not be exaggerated.
    I have just one sentence on pigs. I see that the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe has said that
    "The adjustments for pigs were not out of line with what was required".
    That, I think, is generally accepted. I cannot remember when this most complex of commodities aroused so little dispute, although I know that some hon. Members have been critical.
    I turn next to cereals, the last commodity which I wish to consider in detail. Here again, there have been criticisms, and the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe devoted part of his speech today to this subject. Once again, what are the facts? For many years, technical efficiency in cereals production has been increasing by leaps and bounds. The average yields of wheat and barley have risen by over 40 per cent. and over 30 per cent. respectively in the last ten years. During the same period, mainly as a result of increased mechanisation, the number of man-hours required per acre of wheat and barley have fallen by about 40 per cent.
    All this has made cereals a very profitable line of production for the bigger producers. That is accepted. This is shown by the continuing increase in the barley acreage in recent years, and the rapid increase in production of both barley and wheat. The result has been a substantial rise in the Exchequer bill for cereals from just under £30 million in 1956–57 to an estimated £70 million now. This is a considerable amount.
    It is no wonder, therefore, that even a Conservative Government in 1964, in order to contain the Exchequer liability, introduced the standard quantity and target indicator price arrangements. This means that the more that production exceeds the standard quantity, the lower is the producers' return per ton.
    But there is another important aspect to the cereals picture. Last year—I have referred to this time and time again in reply to Questions—the previous Government entered into a series of agreements with our principal overseas suppliers on minimum import prices which put a floor into our market for cereals. Under those

    1687
    agreements, the then Government undertook
    "… to maintain a fair and reasonable balance between home production and imports".
    To do this, the then Government promised
    "… to restrain financial assistance so as to discourage the increase of domestic cereals production above a level consistent with these objectives".
    That was the price of the minimum import price system. The then Government then undertook that if our total imports of cereals showed an appreciable decline below the average volume of the three years to 1st July, 1964, they would—I quote, to show I am not exaggerating—
    "take effective corrective action at the earliest practicable time to remedy the situation".
    I accepted this principle when I was in opposition. I accept this, and in the decisions in this Review we are honouring the obligations in that agreement. I want to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite: would they have broken the agreement? I have heard talk of unlimited expansion of cereals production. Would they have broken the agreement which they signed? Of course not. They know that no responsible Government could have done so.
    Sir M. Redmayne: As I see it, it is not a question of breaking the agreement. It is a question of interpretation. What I say is that the right hon. Gentleman has interpreted the terms too harshly.
    Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman really must know that the then Government, in their own White Paper, spelt out the figures. I do not want to weary the House too much with quotations, otherwise I shall be accused again by hon. Members opposite of reading, but if hon. Members will read carefully the White Paper they will see that the agreement was spelt out in paragraph 6:
    "The Government of the United Kingdom have decided that any necessary restraint of the financial assistance should be applied through the effective reduction of guaranteed prices by means of the price mechanisms described in the United Kingdom"s White Paper on the Annual Review for 1964–65."
    Right hon. Gentlemen cannot escape responsibility. They know very well that any Government were bound in honour to make the decision and that if imports were reduced below a certain level action had to be taken.
    1688
    What, in fact, has happened is that as a result of the profitability of cereals growing our home cereals production has leaped up and this year our production of wheat and barley will amount to 11 million tons, about 2 million tons over the average of the previous three years. This increase in cereals production has not only taken up the whole of the growth in domestic consumption, but is likely to reduce imports by about 800,000 tons below the three-year average. That is the extent to which we have failed to meet our commitment, and that indicates the magnitude of the corrective action we must take to honour our obligations. So I again ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite: would they have honoured the obligation they entered into less than a year ago? They have hinted—the right hon. Gentleman has hinted—at a more modest cut, but it would not have sufficed to meet those obligations. So we have done what we believe to be right, and we have acted in the letter and the spirit of the agreement.
    These cereal agreements were accepted and agreed however not only by both sides of the House, but also by the leaders of the National Farmers" Unions. They accepted these agreements because they believed that this would mean price stability in the home market through the minimum import price mechanism; this was the price for obtaining a reasonable balance between home production and imports; this was the price certainly of restraint of financial assistance for home production if it grows so large as to take more than its fair and reasonable share.
    I put now to the farmers" leaders, who are saying that it makes no sense to restrain home production, a direct question. Do they now wish to denounce those agreements with our overseas suppliers? They cannot have it both ways. I say to the Opposition and to some farm leaders that there must be no double talk on a matter so important.
    I come to the question of the balance of payments. All this leads, naturally, to consideration of the rôle agriculture must play in our balance of payments situation. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to stress this. He referred to my own speeches and those of my hon. Friends on this matter. I think that there has been much emotional talk on this subject, with little regard to the

    1689
    facts. Of course home agriculture is a very substantial import saver and makes a valuable contribution to the balance of payments. We have had this fully in mind at the Review. I have always said this. Where appropriate, as in beef, we are encouraging the expansion of home production which should help directly in relation to our balance of payments, but we have not fallen into the error of supposing that there would be further help to the balance of payments if we had an utterly indiscriminate expansion of output. There are hon. Members suggesting this to me this afternoon.
    For example, it would obviously be no good producing more eggs or potatoes or milk for liquid consumption where we are self-sufficient. It would not necessarily help the balance of payments to produce more of a commodity at home if this meant that some of our overseas suppliers could no longer buy our exports. We must also take account of our international agreements. These are not one-sided: they have advantages for us as well as for our suppliers. So those who say expand output here at all costs regardless of circumstances must explain what they would do where we already have all we want of a commodity. I ask this: what would they do where the cost to the community of extra production is too large?
    I have already referred to the fact that the subsidy bill on cereals will cost £70 million this year. If we abandoned standard quantities and the minimum import price system what would the subsidy bill be for cereals? Who knows? It is anyone"s guess. It would be considerably higher. No responsible Government can think in terms of indiscriminate expansion. To condemn unlimited, uncontrolled expansion of output, whether wanted or not, is not, however, to be negatively restrictionist. I have always said and I repeat it again—my speech was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman—that I have always looked for sensible expansion of home production. Hon. Members who will look through all my speeches will see that over and over again I have said this to be right and I say this here today, that I want this sensible expansion.
    Our home market, after all, is an expanding one. Our own farmers must have the opportunity to share in this steady
    1690
    expansion of the industry and to play their part. I do not regard the industry as a second rate industry; I do not want the industry to be the Cinderella of our economy. Of course not. I want it, as an efficient industry to have its rightful place in our national economic life. This is the aim. The increase at this Review of standard quantities of wheat and barley and the sharp increase we have made in the middle band for pigs show how this can be done. Our farmers can capture an even greater share of our market if they improve their efficiency in production, in marketing, and in meeting consumer demand.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: I only wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make this plain. Does he not see that his interpretation, when he was in opposition, of what is a sensible price seems to be very different from what he thinks it is now that he is in the Government?
    Mr. Peart: No. I think that I have explained that. I want an expansion of home production, but where we are self-sufficient it would be absurd to have unlimited expansion and expenditure of public money. I have spelt this out. The hon. Member who was once at the Ministry of Food, knows that very well.
    We have it on the right lines. Our home farmers can capture an even greater share of the market by improving marketing and meeting consumer demand. Whatever the commodity, beef, cereals, bacon, for example, there is every reason why our producers should increase their share of a growing market provided that they can become more competitive with other suppliers. Our policies are designed to help them to do that. I see considerable scope for expansion at home, and this will come about.
    My last main point is on the longer-term aspects of policy. This I regard as one of the most important parts of the Review—the constructive proposals which were set out in the White Paper for the long-term development of the industry. Those who have not allowed their emotions to run away with them will have recognised the importance of the long-term proposals. What we have begun to do in this Review is precisely what right hon. Gentleman opposite failed to do when they had opportunities

    1691
    to have a long-term approach. We are tackling the fundamental problems of organisation and structure which they completely neglected. True, they made a belated start in relation to the small farmer problem, but it was left to this Government to extend the Small Farmer Scheme in the right direction. The improvement in farm management which I have emphasised is vital to the future welfare of the small producer. And we are dealing with the small farmer, not in isolation, but as part of a comprehensive attack on the basic problems of the industry.
    On agricultural credit, on agricultural co-operative marketing, on the development of the hill and upland areas, and above all on structure, it has been left to this Government to make a real start. That is why, as I mentioned in the Review White Paper, we intend that our animal health policy, which is important, should develop into preventive veterinary medicine. The previous Administration, who did nothing, must realise that we are seeking to press ahead with marketing. We are doing this, and this is why I am proud and privileged to initiate something useful for the development of orderly marketing in the meat industry.
    All these longer-term developments will inevitably take some time to come to fruition. They imply, inevitably, close collaboration between the Government and the farming community, and in many cases—and hon. Members must remember this—no small expenditure of public money. In the long run, in a democratic society such as ours, it must be remembered that this expenditure of Exchequer money can continue only if the broad mass of public opinion recognises its value to the national economy. For that reason I utterly deplore all attempts to split town from country, and I was sorry to read of people sneering at those who live and work in towns and cities.
    In my constituency I have areas of heavy industry and areas of farming. I have always followed the policy, both in my constituency and elsewhere, of trying to explain the feelings of the rural community to the town dwellers, and vice versa. I deplore any attempt to split this Island into town and country. For this reason, I have no time
    1692
    for those who wish to destroy the system of agricultural support which stems from the 1947 Act passed by the Labour Government.
    In a highly industrialised society such as ours that Act provided the framework within which agriculture could enjoy its proper place in the economy. It has enabled British people to enjoy better food at much lower prices than in any comparable industrialised country—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Members on opposite sides of the House not to shout at each other from a sitting position.
    Mr. Peart: Equally, however, it must be recognised that the system imposes a considerable charge on the taxpayer, which can be defended only if it is in the national interest. I have, therefore, equally no time at all for irresponsible elements of the farming community, encouraged, I regret to say, by intemperate remarks sometimes from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who talk about extremist action. I say to them, and they are a small minority of farmers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Hon. Members know of the intemperate questions which were asked when I announced my Price Review. I say to this small minority of farmers, "Have done with talk of civil disobedience. That is not the way of the British farmer". To those fomenting such extreme attitudes, I say that by alienating the goodwill of the general public they are causing serious damage to the interests of agriculture. A curious fact is that when I ask those who attack the Price Review most vocally, they tell me that they have not read the White Paper, so I am heartened by the support of progressive farmers who have taken the trouble to study our long-term constructive proposals.
    I advise hon. Gentlemen opposite to reconsider their emotional reactions, to stop playing at politics, and to consider calmly the facts of this Review, both in their immediate impact, and in their longer-term implications. When hon. Members study the facts calmly, they will see that we have laid the basis of a policy which will lead to a more stable, a more efficient, and a more prosperous agricultural industry.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. Paul Hawkins: I have been told that I am nearly the last maiden in the House. Accurate or not—and it is a little strange for a grandfather to be thus referred to—I am glad that I have lasted to this most important date in my constituency calendar, the debate on the Price Review and agricultural affairs. I admit that I was a little worried as to whether I would catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As an auctioneer, I am more used to having people trying to catch my eye.
    Before mentioning the Price Review, which is perhaps a more controversial subject than is usual for a maiden speech, I hope that I may say something about my constituency. South-West Norfolk has been very fortunate since the war. We have had both Mr. Denys Bullard and the late Mr. Sydney Dye as our Members. Though very different personalities, they were outstanding countrymen, and I feel sure that the House missed them greatly. Many Members, not confined to this side of the House alone, I am sure, will hope that Mr. Bullard"s return will not be long delayed. My opponent, Mr. Hilton, was also a very good member.
    Having been born and bred in Norfolk, as was my father before me, I am very proud to represent my home. I suppose it would be considered controversial if I were to say that we in South-West Norfolk feel that we are politically ahead of a lot of people. They say that how South-West Norfolk votes one year so the country will vote at the next election. But, leaving that aside, we can give a lead to the country, first, in productivity and, secondly, in labour relations.
    South-West Norfolk is one of the finest farming constituencies in the country. The land varies from the productive fens near Downham Market, where I live, growing wheat and all the root crops—potatoes and sugar beet, chicory, celery and carrots—to the light Brecklands around Swaffham which were formerly sheep walks, but which now grow barley and sugar or are used for forestry, and so eastwards to the mixed farms round Dareham.
    1694
    There are large farms—too large in some cases—but also a considerable number of smallholdings, the Norfolk County Council owning the largest smallholding estate in the country. I have been a member of the Smallholdings Committee of the Norfolk County Council since 1949, and in this connection I hope that the Minister will shortly receive the Wise Committee's Report and that it will look favourably on increasing the numbers and size of holdings on—and I emphasise this—suitable land.
    It does not need any words of mine to say that labour relations in farming are an example to the rest of industry. If the increase in productivity had been attained in other industries, we should have no economic problems at all.
    We are not, however, solely confined to farming. There are excellent modern industries, with first-class records of productivity and labour relations, including clock and furniture making, trailer works, fireworks—and here I add that I have none in my pocket—and light engineering. We are also very proud of the Service connection in South-West Norfolk. We have the R.A.F. stations at Marham Feltwell and Swanton Morley, and the Army training area at Mundford. They are not only outward signs of our defences but they provide very welcome civilian employment.
    Since farming is the largest industry in South-West Norfolk, I wish to mention its contributions to the life of the nation and the problems which face it. I should like here to pay tribute to the former Minister of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames). He did a first-class job in this none too easy post and earned the sincere respect of all sections of the industry. He could be really tough with the farmers on occasions, but I think he fought well for them in the Cabinet. At the same time I would very much like to wish the present Minister all success in his job, despite his rather unhappy start. All the agricultural Ministers are very likeable personalities; unfortunately it appears that their colleagues do not believe in agriculture or understand the part it can play in the affairs of the nation.
    The Price Review in total will hit agriculture hard. I wish only to mention two items which will greatly affect

    1695
    Norfolk. The first is corn. The really savage cuts will hurt the smaller arable farmer more than the bigger farmer. I estimate that a 50-acre smallholder will have a cut in his income of 25s. a week. The beef increase of 4s. is, in my opinion, far too small; 10s. could easily have been given. I spent yesterday morning—perhaps hon. Members may say when I should have been here—selling fat cattle in King's Lynn Market. There the whole of the farming community were mentioning the shortage of stores, fatteners having to pay between £10 and £11 a cwt. for them and then selling them at about £9. I believe that we should give a bigger increase to fatteners.
    The real grouse of agriculturists is just that incomes have been going down in relation to the cost of living while all around them others, including myself, have had increases. That is their real grouse and, whatever else is said today, that is how the farmers see the position. Rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, there has been a real loss of confidence in this Government over the Price Review. Farmers and farm workers alike had been so buoyed up with promises of such great things to come from a Labour Government that they really began to believe them. This started with a speech by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs which was made in my constituency and which has been referred to on many occasions. I think that Swaffham has become quite a notorious place as a result. It was later printed as the Labour Party's new policy on agriculture. As the Minister wrote in the Lynn Advertiser
    "The main objective of Labour"s new policy will be to ensure that the incomes of farmers and farm workers move rapidly towards their industrial equivalents."
    Do hon. Members wonder that they feel badly let down now?
    The industry has also begun to realise that the Labour Party, with honourable exceptions, has little interest in agriculture"s great value to the nation. Remarks made today by hon. Members opposite and remarks by at Question Time the other day by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) criticising even this paltry
    1696
    award seemed to command a wide measure of respect from hon. Members opposite. I should like to mention some facts and some problems in the agricultural industry and, I hope, make a few constructive suggestions.
    The facts which, unfortunately, are not understood by the public are these. In Great Britain we are producing a large proportion of the food consumed here, thus slashing the import bill. Nevertheless, last year British imports of temperate foodstuffs cost well over £1,000 million and were equal to at least three months of exports. Secondly, producers in Great Britain are highly efficient. Those people who say they are not are just talking nonsense and have not been on an East Anglian farm. Hon. Members need not take my word for this. Mr. Rees Mogg, the former editor of the Financial Times, writing in the Sunday Times, on 21st March, said:
    "International comparisons show British farming to be far ahead of British industry in its record of productivity. It takes twelve men to produce as much food in Britain as ten men can produce in America. But it takes twenty-five men to produce in Britain industrial goods that ten men can produce in America."
    If British industry had kept up with farming, we should not have had a balance of payments problem since 1955. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that there is a very strong case for increasing home food production. I know that our farmers could do it and, with the world population explosion, surely we cannot and must not rely for ever on cheap food grown abroad.
    Again—and this is a fact which does not seem to be appreciated by the British public—prices of the main British farm products are much lower than European prices. As everyone who has taken a holiday on the Continent knows, meat is far dearer there than it is here. The new guaranteed price for barley here is 5s. cwt. less than the French price and 12s. less than the German price. Of course, farming has its problems as well. Modern mass production methods and the formation of vast enterprises managed from afar create a real social and human problem, and this is something to which all Ministers must pay a great deal of attention in the future. The poultry industry is an example of this. There is no easy solution, but it would be a very bad thing

    1697
    for this country if many of those who at present are farming their own land were to become the paid employees either of the State or of huge remote-controlled concerns.
    The most urgent problem, however, is the relationship between the earnings of the farmers and skilled farm workers and the earnings of their opposite numbers in industry. In passing, may I emphasise the great skills of the farm worker. He is a skilled mechanic, able to drive, service and repair combines, tractors and the like. He can operate large grain storage plants and apply accurately sprays and manures.
    Farm workers are really skilled men, and there is a shortage of younger skilled men on the land. This, in turn, will cut output; I have no doubt about that whatever. Yet the National Farmers" Union hardly ever manages to agree wages with the N.U.A.W. I think that a very bad thing. Their reason is fear of prejudicing their case at the Price Review. I should like to suggest that the Minister should state that an offer of increased wages sufficient to keep skilled younger workers on the land would not prejudice a claim for reimbursement. Secondly, that the T.U.C. should acknowledge—which it does not at the moment—that skilled workers in agriculture should not be kept on the bottom rung of the ladder. There would be considerable benefits from this. Sources of friction would be removed. Larger farmers would have a share of a skilled labour force without which increased production, particularly of livestock, cannot be undertaken. Working family farmers would have a better income, because a large part of what they are paid for their crops is represented by the labour element. Since they are working farmers, their income would be increased in this way.
    I was glad to hear what the Minister said about my next point. I had written it down. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying it over again, as he probably said it better than I shall. I hope that we shall never become two nations, either in any wider sense or in the narrower sense of town versus country. I was born and bred in the countryside, the grandson and great grandson of farmers. When I left school, my father said to me, as every father does, "Well, boy, what are you going to do?" I said that I should like to be a
    1698
    farmer. When I said this, I was quickly told, "Boy, you have not enough brains and I have not enough money." So I became an auctioneer. That was in the 1930s, when one needed money to stick on a farm.
    Since then, apart from my work on farms and in cattle markets, I have served in the Territorial Army with a company of Norfolk farm workers, who are the finest men one could serve with. I had five years as a prisoner of war, surrounded by the Highland Division. If that was not enough to make me tolerant of other people"s views—[Laughter.]—when one has heard chanters played for four or five hours at a time, one beomes a little intolerant—political life in South-West Norfolk should have made me so.
    I say in all sincerity to those living in the towns, the vast majority of our countrymen, that British agriculture has a great deal to contribute to the wellbeing of the nation if it is given a chance. In particular, East Anglia, the food store of the nation, could enable imports to be cut drastically. The agricultural industry, however, must feel that it is wanted and farmer and farm worker alike be assured of fair pay for a fair day"s work.
    I consider myself extremely fortunate to be a Member of the House. Now that I have completed this speech, which had a longer gestation period than usual, I hope that on future occasions I shall be able to contribute something of value to other debates.
    5.42 p.m.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am glad that it falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) on an admirable maiden speech. I am sure that he will allow me, on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate him on his courage in intervening as an auctioneer in an agricultural debate. He spoke with ability and practical knowledge of his subject. I am sure that we shall look forward to contributions from him in our debates in the future. I would only add that if he had also had the privilege and opportunity of serving with the Welsh Division, he would have been even more tolerant than he was.
    The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) spoke of the

    1699
    difference between performance and promise. If he wants a very telling example of the difference between promise and performance, perhaps he would look at the pre-election and post-election Price Reviews of his own Government. He moved the Motion, which says that the Price Review has done severe damage to the confidence of the farming community. The confidence of the farming community was shaken a long time ago by a succession of erratic Price Reviews ranging from +£31 million in an election year to -£18 million. In those "minus years" there was no demand from hon. Gentlemen opposite for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe, when Patronage Secretary, had many revolts of various kinds on his hands, but he never had a revolt in those years from hon. Members from agricultural constituencies sitting behind him.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.
    Mr. William Hamilton: They were muted.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: They were very muted. Nobody knew anything about them. But that was the time for hon. Gentlemen opposite to use their influence on the Government. That was the time for them to get their own Government to change their agricultural policies. At this late stage, it is no good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to wash their hands of the responsibility for those years. The farmers" leaders recognise the responsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite for those years. In fact, the Vice-President of the National Farmers Union, who conducted the Price Review this year, said that the farmers" resentment is the "result of a build-up over the years"—not of this Review, but of a build-up over the years, years when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power.
    As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the greatest indictment of Tory agricultural policy has come from the leaders of the farming community. The advertisement which they put in the newspapers points to the fact that farmers" incomes have risen by less than 1 per
    1700
    cent. over the last 12 years while the average incomes of the rest of the community have risen by 56 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture very generously pointed out, that was perhaps an overstatement, but it was not made by hon. Members on this side of the House; it was made by the farming community and their representatives. It is surely unjust that my right hon. Friend and the Government should have to "carry the can" for Tory agricultural policies. The blame should rest fairly and squarely where it belongs, and that is on the shoulders of the party opposite.
    Hon. Members have concentrated their attack, to a large extent, on milk. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, with the exception of election year, a penny a gallon is the largest increase given to milk producers since the present system began. We have had —¼d., —½d. and even —1d. I will not say that this Review is one which many of us would have hoped for in different economic circumstances. It is acknowledged by leaders of the farming industry and by the Milk Marketing Board that the dairy industry costs, which were assessed at £11 million, have been met in full. This is not only a question of the amount of the award for milk or for any other commodity. I think that it is important for us to think of a Price Review not only in terms of the actual award, but of whether the farmer is getting a fair share of the award and of the subsidy.
    This is a problem which is absolutely vital to the future prosperity of the agricultural industry, and it is a problem which the party opposite never attempted to tackle. It is important in meat and in milk. Large sums of public money have been voted for agriculture and to get the prices of food down, but they were not voted for the benefit of fertiliser firms nor for retailers who have often taken too large a share of the subsidies. We must look at this problem fairly, squarely and honestly, and ask ourselves whether the dairy farmer is now getting a fair share of the money. It is he who takes the risk and works the long hours, and he is entitled to an adequate reward. There is is a great deal of anxiety about the margin for milk. Out of the 4d. which the housewife pays, the farmer receives only ld. To many on this side of the

    1701
    House, that does not seem to be an adequate share—
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: Hear, hear.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am glad to have the hon. Member"s support. He does not always support his brother, and I am glad that he has given me some support.
    This disparity between what the farmer gets and what the housewife pays has continued for a very long time, and I am glad that for the first time my right hon. Friend has set up an inquiry into the distribution costs for milk. I am also glad that he says that we are to have the report in the summer.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Lady accept that one reason that there is a grievance among farmers is that when the distributive trades changed to a five-day week, the cost was immediately passed on, whereas the farmer, who spends a seven-day week producing the milk, gets a very small return indeed?
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: I agree with the hon. Member thus far: the fact that the dairy producer has to work a seven-day week should be given its due weight in the assignment of the award. No one would say that it is not right for the dairyman to have a five-day week, but the distribution as between the two sections should be fair and just.
    There is a great disparity, too, between the farmer"s receipts and the amount which the housewife has to pay for other commodities. This is true to a serious extent about meat. The Verdon Smith Report pointed out the glaring disparity between the farmers" receipts and the retailers" profits. We on this side of the House pointed this out to right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power, but in vain. Farmers have been very conscious of it and have wanted a meat producers" board—but no action was taken while the Conservative Party were in power. We were told that we must await the Verdon Smith Report. In the event, we found that the recommendations of that Report were not worth waiting for because they almost entrenched the system as it exists. The facts which the Committee produced were good and revealing, but their recommendations did not get us anywhere. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, after
    1702
    years of shilly-shallying, that at last we are to have a meat and livestock board.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Lady has shown clearly that she believes that the Price Reviews under the previous Administration were bad. She gave no evidence in support of that, but that was the general impression which she gave. May we take it that in her view this Price Review in respect of milk and meat is unfair to farmers? If one interprets the evidence which she has given about meat and milk, it means that she says that the Price Review is unfair to the farmer in respect of milk and meat. Is that the clear message which she wants to give?
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me. I did not say that the Price Reviews of the previous Administration were uniformly bad. I quoted a "plus" Review before the election, and, in fact, there were three or four "plus" Reviews. If the hon. Member is trying to get me to say that I think that the milk award is satisfactory, I do not know what satisfactory is. I am simply saying that it compares very favourably with some of the milk awards which were made by the Conservative Government.
    There are other important changes in the Review. Special consideration is being given in the granting of subsidies to those areas most in need. This has not yet been stressed. Special consideration is being given to small farmers particularly on marginal land. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe did not devote much attention or much time to these benefits. He gabbled through them. But in Wales and other parts of the country these benefits are very valuable. In Wales the majority of farms are small and are on poor, marginal or upland land. The fate of these farms will determine the farming situation in Wales—and this also applies to Scotland, parts of the north of England and the West Country.
    The extension of the small farmers" schemes will bring real assistance to these areas, 40,000 more small farmers will be brought into the schemes. Is that nothing? In Wales last year the schemes covered over 2,000 farmers. As a result of my right hon. Friend"s proposals, this

    1703
    year the number of beneficiaries in Wales will be doubled, and their incomes will accordingly be increased.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Does not the hon. Lady believe that the schemes would be better if the limit went down as well as up? I am sure that in her division, as in mine, many small farmers will not qualify for the schemes.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: I do not know whether the hon. Member means that the schemes should go below 20 acres. At a time when we are considering the importance and efficacy of having somewhat larger farm units, this is at any rate debatable. I will say no more than that.
    The hill sheep farm subsidy over the last five years has been running at 9s. 6d. per ewe. It is to be increased to 18s.—almost double. There is also the increase in the hill cow subsidy. Instead of the farmer not knowing what he will get under these two provisions, and perhaps getting nothing at all, he will have some idea what he will get because of the more permanent character of these two awards.
    Special new credit facilities are being granted which are important to small and medium farmers as well as to the larger farmers. There is also an indication in the White Paper that in the Review in future account is to be taken of geographical situation, soil, climate and market considerations. I welcome this very much. I hope this means that for the first time guarantees will be varied and directed to those areas most in need.
    Mr. Marcus Kimball Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough) rose—
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: I have given way several times. It is slightly distracting, particularly when I am trying not to take too much time and to present a coherent argument to the House.
    The question of the fair assessment of increased costs and the continuing gain in efficiency is of enormous importance and has not, I believe, been referred to in the debate. This is a vital matter in assessing the final reward in any Review. The figure was fixed at £25 million in 1960, which is five years ago, and now the Government have decided to review that figure. We welcome that decision.
    1704
    However, I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to review this figure he will consider whether £25 million is not a large sum to expect the industry to absorb, particularly when one takes into consideration the fact that the industry spends on capital improvements about £170 million. That sum must be found and the interest met. I realise that this is a time when the Government are asking all industries to absorb more of their costs. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this figure relating to agriculture most carefully in coming to his conclusions.
    We recognise the vital importance of this great industry in the economic life of the country. We recognise the unique contribution—and I emphasise "unique"—it has made and is making to our balance of payments. That is why we welcome the long-term proposals which my right hon. Friend has made, for it means that at long last we have a Government who are prepared to face some of the basic problems of the industry, and unless we are prepared to face up to these problems and tackle them there can be no real security for the farmers of this country, nor can there be any permanent prosperity for the industry.
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. R. H. Turton: I have always had a very high opinion of the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was, therefore, a very great shock to me when he delivered his speech this afternoon, for it was in certain parts completely dishonest.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the speech of my right hon. Friend was completely dishonest. Is that in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it is in order to say that a speech was dishonest but not to say that a Minister is dishonest.
    Mr. Turton: I will say why.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Turton: When dealing with the cereals side of the issue the Minister tried to make it appear that he was bound by

    1705
    the international agreement to make a certain definite cut in the cereals payments, a cut amounting to about £2 an acre, whereas in fact he did not have the slightest justification for that cut. Certainly he had to make a cut, but not a definite one of £2 an acre and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that.
    Mr. Peart: I accept the challenge, and if the right hon. Gentleman will carefully read the White Paper he will see that I had to take that remedial action. To use extravagant language like "dishonest" in reference to my speech does not do the right hon. Gentleman justice. I have always thought of him as a reasonable man, but today he is merely being irrational.
    Mr. Turton: I gather that the Minister agrees that there was no justification for a definite cut of a certain amount.
    What we expected from the right hon. Gentleman was a coherent plan in the Price Review. I recall that when the right hon. Gentleman last year attacked the Price Review of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) he quoted my criticism of the 1960 Price Review, when I said that there was no clear plan or reassurance for the future. I believe that that was true of the 1960 Review, but it was completely untrue of last year"s Review, because in that we had control of imports and a plan emerging for balanced production in agriculture.
    Where this Price Reviews fails is in the fact that it does not give any confidence for the future to the man who is in livestock or dairying, the man who has a 50 to 150 acre farm. I recall the present Minister"s words of June, 1964, when, speaking at a luncheon in London, he said:
    "If I were Minister of Agriculture my first job would be to get the industry together and work out a five-year or more plan for British agriculture. Farmers just cannot go on living from one expedient to another, with all their prospects revolving around the February Price Review."
    That is exactly the position in which we are now.
    I entirely agree with the Minister that we must avoid exaggeration and that we must try to get to the real problem which is facing British agriculture today. As my hen. Friend the Member for Nor-
    1706
    folk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said in what I thought was a most able maiden speech, the real problem facing the man with a livestock or dairying farm of about 150 acres is that he is receiving in net income during the year an amount which is equivalent to about £15 a week. That sum must pay him back for interest on plant and capital and represents his remuneration, whereas the average earnings of a manual worker last year were £18 a week. This is the problem which the Minister has failed to attack in this Price Review.
    Consider the position in regard to milk. Up till June, 1964, the number of dairy cows was lower than in any year since 1960. The number of heifers in calf was less than any year, except 1963, since 1960, and the number of milk producers had gone down from 150,000 to 125,000. I believe that the Minister has made a great mistake, although it may well be that it was a mistake which was imposed on him by the First Secretary. I refer, of course, to the issue of not giving the industry a 2d. rise for milk, which could have been given at very little cost to either the Exchequer or the consumer but which would have made a very great difference to the milk industry.
    I cannot see how this 1·2d. per gallon will arrest the decline in the milk industry. After all, if the extra 1d. had been given it would have meant only £10 million on the Exchequer subsidy at a time when the subsidy on beef will be very much less this year than last. Or it could have meant, if it had been left to the consumer, a rise of about ½d. per pint for three additional months in the year. I believe that it would have resulted in keeping farmers in milk production without there being any great over-production of milk. It would have been well worth it.
    The Minister makes it clear in paragraph 22 of the White Paper that the importance of this milk question does not only affect the milk side but also the beef market and, frankly, I am disturbed about the present position in relation to beef cattle. The figures for animals between 12 months and two years are lower than in any year since 1960. The number of cattle over two years old—which is natural, perhaps, in view of the way in which we are going in for

    1707
    marketing lighter weights—has dropped by 50 per cent. in eight years and the number of heifers and calves has dropped by 9 per cent. in eight years.
    Last year, our imports dropped by 400,000 cwt.—that is over 6 per cent.—but the actual cost to us in the trade returns went up by £15 million. I cannot see how we shall meet the consumers" demand for beef unless we give greater encouragement than the 4s. per cwt. on beef in the Price Review. We are very short of calves for the purpose.
    A new development has occurred in the last few weeks. Irish stores, which are higher this year than last, are still well below the figure of four years ago. The Irish Government has now brought in a subsidy that will reduce the quantity of stores coming into this country, and I would ask whoever is to reply on behalf of the Government what their policy is for attracting farmers into rearing more livestock at the present time. The danger of this Review is that it is this sort of man who will go out of production.
    I give the Minister full credit for having helped the hill farmer by increasing the hill sheep and hill cow subsidies, but this is accentuating the difference between the hill farmer and the man slightly lower down the hill, who is in milk production at the present time and who is the man on whom we rely to produce the calves and store cattle for the beef industry. That man is being driven down, especially in comparison with the hill farmers.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) talked about production grants, but we have to realise that it is the lack of balance in the presentation that is doing the damage. It is serious when we consider that the farmer abroad is getting a much higher return for his cattle. Whilst the price of beef here is to be £8 14s. per cwt., the farmer in Italy will get £14 4s. per cwt. for his cattle; if he is in Holland he will get £12 per cwt., and if he is in Western Germany he will be getting £11. Therefore, unless the Minister can take fresh additional action in this respect, I foresee that we shall get a great deal of Continental buying of British beef, and a very great shortage of beef in our own shops.
    I have tried to judge this Review by getting actual cases among my con-
    1708
    stituents in the 150-acre margin, and seeing how they are affected. Some hon. Members seem to believe that there is a certain amount of exaggeration in Press reports of the farmers" reaction to the Price Review, but I have taken a sample of six farmers in my constituency with acreages of between 100 and 169. I can show the Minister the particulars if he wants to see them, but one would not, of course, want to identify sources in a speech.
    These six farmers are all hit by the Review, to the following extent. In two cases, they have already had to dismiss workers. In two other cases they have decided to cut down their staff. In all six cases they are having to work out a policy for reducing production on their farms—in other words, lowering the standard of efficiency—in order to get by without having to go to the banks.
    One man, who is farming 169 acres, has worked out exactly how the Price Review will affect him. He will get increases in the price of his products amounting to £134 a year, but he will suffer decreases in the same Review—by the cuts in the cereal payments—of £120. He is, therefore, up £14 in prices, but his wage costs, insurance charges, increased fertiliser costs and other increases come to over £250. Therefore, that man who is farming 169 acres, is about £230 out of pocket under this Review—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that farmer pays rent and, if so, whether his rent has not gone up in recent times?
    Mr. Turton: Certainly, one of the increases is an increase in rent. The increase in rent on that farm is £100. The increase altogether is about £250, of which £100 is increase in rent.
    An example I have here shows that the position of the owner-occupier is exactly the same. The man in question is farming 100 acres. He expects an increase of roughly £100 and a decrease of £100—they balancė out. But his increased costs are in the region of £50. He does not pay rent, but his fertiliser costs, labour costs bring him out—
    Mr. William Baxter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what type of farmer this man is?

    1709
    What is he producing? What is he rearing?
    Mr. Turton: This man is producing milk. He has 16 milking cows, and he is fattening 12 bullocks. He has 51 acres of barley out of his 100 acres, and he is the sort of marginal man who is, in my view, being hit by this Review—
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: One can gather that the inference of the questions my right hon. Friend has just been asked is anti-landlord, but would not the individual owner have an overdraft at the bank and have to pay increased charges as a consequence of the Labour Government"s Bank Rate increase?
    Mr. Turton: That is a perfectly fair point. Maintenance charges have gone up just as others have, but in the instance I gave it is quite fair to say that £100 of the £250 was rent.
    The Government have to think out again a policy to deal with this particular problem of the man farming about 150 acres. I have criticised the Price Review. It is only fair to say—
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to get away with the point he made about my right hon. Friend making a dishonest speech. He made the point that my right hon. Friend did not need to make a full cut on cereals, but I have here a paper which I want to read to the House, and which makes it perfectly plain that my right hon. Friend was anything but dishonest. This is Cmnd. 2339, and it states:
    "The Government of the United Kingdom have decided that any necessary restraint of financial assistance should be applied through the effective reduction of guaranteed prices by means of the price mechanisms described in the United Kingdom White Paper on the Annual Review for 1964–65."
    My right hon. Friend read out that part, but did not give the figures because he said that he did not want to bore the House.
    The document goes on:
    "These mechanisms would in the case of wheat start to operate when production exceeded 3·2 million tons and would operate fully when production exceeded 3·3 million tons "—
    1710
    Wheat production is now 3·9 million tons, so they have to operate fully:
    "and in the case of barley would start to operate when production exceeded 6·3 million tons and would operate fully when production exceeded 6·5 million tons".
    Barley production is now 7·4 million tons. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that it is absolutely categorical that the full reduction of 4 per cent. had to be made, and I would ask him to withdraw what he said.
    Mr. Turton: If I understand that correctly, there must be some reduction in price. There must not be the full reduction. I will certainly withdraw any imputation of intentional dishonesty on the part of the Minister. I never said that. I said that it was a dishonest approach because, in my view, it did not carry out the agreement. I will certainly take this opportunity of looking at it again.
    I criticise the Review. What should have been done? I was saying what I believe that the Minister should have done. He should have increased the amount for milk by 2d. a gallon. I believe that the effect of that would have been to have stopped the drift away from milk. At the same time, it would have allowed the milk industry to produce the calves we require for beef. I believe he should have given an extra 10s. a cwt. on beef. What I believe he ought to have done—I recommend him to think again about this—was to have adopted a more adventurous policy in respect of the calf subsidy. Farmers who are living on what I call the; upland areas should be given a double calf subsidy to encourage them to produce the stores which are required for the beef industry. When the Irish stores fail—they will fail, and we shall be very short—it is vital to get the hill and upland areas producing the calves, I recommend this policy to the Minister.
    I am glad to hear that the Minister is to reconsider the question of the £25 million for efficiency. The farmers have lost confidence in the present pattern of Price Reviews, because the more efficient they are the more they have to cut down their returns from their efficiency and the more they have in consequence to cut down the standard of their farming. It is regrettable that the industry has lost

    1711
    confidence in the right hon. Gentleman so early in his career. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will correct this.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has at any rate expressed a willingness to correct the impression he gave when he made his remark about the dishonesty of the approach of my right hon. Friend the Minister. If one thing stands out a mile with regard to the Minister, it is the honesty of his approach to these things. My right hon. Friend is not only being honest. He is being courageous, courteous, sympathetic and firm. It should go on record today how very much some of my hon. Friends and I admire the way my right hon. Friend has handled this whole business.
    It should also be said how much many of us admired the performance displayed by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman has been silent for far too long in this place. His speech this afternoon was magnificent as a histrionic performance. The right hon. Gentleman completely ignored the facts. He behaved as though, in sorrow far more than in anger, he was lecturing this side of the House for letting the farmers down.
    Sir M. Redmayne indicated assent.
    Mr. Mallalieu: I see that I now have the right hon. Gentleman's approval. Nothing, is further from the truth. The right hon. Gentleman never so much as referred to the economic situation which the Conservative Party left us. The farming community as a whole is now £6 million better off as a result of the Review, in spite of the economic situation which everybody knows exists and which is denied only by hon. Members opposite. None of us likes talking about communities as a whole, because communities are made up of individuals who may be very differently affected from the way in which the average is affected. Farmers have had their extra expenses of £29 million. With the award of £10 million and the reasonable estimated increase in productivity, there is no doubt that they will get an extra £6 million.
    1712
    This is not the sort of Review which most of us on this side would expect in normal times, but these are not normal times. In these circumstances it is an extraordinarily fair and generous Review. All the hysteria which has been generated by the Tory Party, encouraging this nonsense which is going on in the countryside and leading these poor boobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as of course they are in politics, not in their proper affairs—up and down the streets and away from their proper affairs, encouraging them to behave as they have been doing, is not a good thing for the House and it is not a good thing for agriculture.
    Mr. Michael Noble: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that long before the results of the Price Review were known in the House or outside the responsible leaders of the National Farmers' Union had rejected the review across the whole board. In the light of that, how can the hon. and learned Gentleman blame the Tories or anybody else for the anger of the farmers?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think it is necessary to blame only the Tories. I certainly do not. I think that the National Farmers' Union, for instance, has let the matter get out of hand. The union had a perfectly good case, one which I have argued myself many times, in the House and elsewhere, to the effect that the farming community should have a much greater slice of the national cake than it often does have and than it has at present. What the National Farmers' Union has not done is to show that the economic situation at any moment has a bearing on the situation. The fact that the National Farmers' Union had rejected these matters before the Price Review was made public and before right hon. and hon. Members opposite had had time to stir about in those troubled waters does not make the slightest difference. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are guilty for the way they have behaved since, just as the National Farmers' Union was guilty for the way it behaved before.
    Sir John Maitland: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that some small part of the anger of the farmers is due to the promises that the

    1713
    Labour Party made before the General Election?
    Mr. Mallalieu: No, I do not nor does the Vice-Chairman of the National Farmers' Union, who has been quoted already this afternoon. He has made a very fair approach to these problems. He puts the blame fairly and squarely, not just upon what has happened this year, but upon what has happened for a good many years before.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—
    Mr. Mallalieu: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman now. He has been interrupting frequently. He will agree that he has had his quota. Without a doubt, farming incomes have been rising. Farm incomes are not the only things that matter. Real income matters very much more than money income. Farm incomes rose by £31 million last year. Everyone would wish to see this go on. But if one accepts the principle, the mechanism of a farm Price Review, one surely has to accept also the possibility that there may be changes of emphasis within the total given to the agricultural industry.
    The whole point of the Review is to try to introduce some stability and foreknowledge among the farming community of what they are to expect in the course of the next period. This undoubtedly has been the aim of Governments in the past, and it has been shown in difficult times that their aim still is an efficient, planned agriculture producing those things which in the interest of the country the farming community should produce.
    I do not think that the farming community wants more, but the National Farmers' Union has to make noises in this direction, as anyone else has who is in a bargaining situation. If the farmers want more then they want to put agriculture on the dole. It is not on the dole at present, in my submission, though many people think that it is. In fact, the people on the dole are the ordinary consumers to a large extent and, if it is not they, it is the employers in industry and commerce who are able to pay less wages because their employees have to pay less for their food as a result of what is going on in the farming setup in this country.
    1714
    I know that many farming leaders very often exclaim that we must have an expanding agriculture. They base their claim largely on the fact that the agricultural production which we have had over the last few years has been to a large extent of great benefit to our balance-of-payments position. Nobody disputes that, but surely it is not wise to say that we must have unlimited production in agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who has?"] I submit that very often the remarks and attitudes of hon. Members opposite give some colour to the belief of people who do not study these things as much as we study them in the House that they are arguing that there should be unlimited expansion.
    Everybody who produces a commodity says, of course, that the production of that commodity should be expanded. There is a great deal to be done by way of expansion, as my right hon. Friend has said, and I have no doubt that due to the increased food market in this country the agricultural community can look forward to great increases in production. But it all depends where and in what set-up. I should have thought that wheat was certainly not one of the products, nor cereals either. We are probably at present self-sufficient in barley.
    I wonder whether the larger farmers of East Anglia really imagined that this pay-day, as I would call it, was everlasting for them. If they did they are much bigger fools than I had taken them to be. I believe that the tendencies shown in this Review are such as to cause the agricultural community to be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for many years to come.
    There has, of course, been a shift away in this Review from those who are most prosperous in the industry, but many of them know jolly well that they will still be prosperous in spite of the shift away from them in the direction of their poorer brethren on the hills and those who, for one reason or another, describe themselves as marginal whether because they have too small an acreage or because they have not enough capital or because they are too high in the hills. These people will have a definite advantage given to them. This is a great constructive effort on the part of my

    1715
    right hon. Friend. It does not stop there—
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before the hon. and learned Member leaves the point about East Anglian farmers, I am sure that he would not want it to be put about that he imagines that they get a large return on their investment. I agree that there are many prosperous men among them, but if one includes investment in land, buildings and stock, their return is a great deal lower than it is in a wide field of manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Mallalieu: I accept that comment to a large extent and it would apply equally to biggish farmers in Lincolnshire. All the same, I would describe them as fairly well-to-do, and that being so, I do not think that they have much to complain about. There may be certain aspects in which they are not quite as well off as other people, nevertheless they are not doing too badly.
    The measures now being taken to assist their smaller brethren who are in more difficult circumstances are extremely good. The help given in the matter of holdings is unspectacular and will gain no electoral support but it is very important to the efficiency of these holdings. We have had the promise also of serious consideration being given to the question of amalgamation. This does not only mean putting together holdings which are too small to be economically viable by themselves. It means that there is a great human question here to be decided.
    I look forward to the time when we shall hear the results of my right hon. Friend's studies in these matters and of his consideration of the experience of many continental countries, whether it be concentration, or the retraining of the human elements which will be affected by the tendency which has been going on for some time toward bigger and bigger holdings. I look forward greatly to hearing about that, because I believe that the Labour Government have shown that they mean business in the matter of agriculture, setting it on a sound foundation, as they did in the years before, and also applying themselves to the human side of things. The Government will attend to that so that in the areas mostly affected by amalgamations there will be left a happy and contented population.
    6.37 p.m.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: I ought to declare an interest, or disinterest, in the Price Review. I am a big farmer. This is often brought against me, and perhaps one could notice in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) that he thought that farmers should not be prosperous or prosperous-looking. But I have a good, big farm. It is of course superbly managed, and I have a good banker. [An HON. MEMBER: "And good workers."] Yes, excellent. Therefore, I do not think that in any circumstances that the Government could apply, however, bad a Review or anything else, I would fail to make a living on this land, with the good men and with the good training I have had. But this does not apply all over the country.
    I should like to take up with the Minister and the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), who respectively opened the debate from each side of the House, their complete agreement on certain points. They are absolutely agreed that we must not produce too much so that it will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. I always thought that the whole object of deficiency payments was that people should have cheap food and that we were willing to pay from the Exchequer so that cheaper food could flow to them. The price of the people's food has gone up in the shops by 30 per cent. since 1953 and the whole system has broken down. The agreement between the two Front Benches is highly unhealthy. They need to work out a system whereby we can produce in this country the maximum amount of food, with not too much of one thing and too little of another, at an effective and efficient price.
    I should like to discuss this matter of the efficiency of British farming for a moment or two. It is often said from both sides of the House that large doles are poured out to the farming community. In its report on the growth of the economy last year, the N.E.D.C. showed that agriculture was in the top seven industries in this country in improving its production per man by over 5 per cent. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) spoke about the British farm worker's productivity. Ten people in America produce as much as

    1717
    12 people do here on the land, and this in spite of the immense natural advantages and opportunities for mechanisation which large sections of American agriculture enjoy. One can quote other figures. We produce five times as much per man as is produced in the Soviet Union.
    Prices in this country are not high. There have been references to food prices in Europe, but it is not generally known in this country that the price paid for wheat in America is higher than it is in this country, again in spite of America's great natural advantages. The people of Britain are getting reasonably cheap food, particularly compared with other countries in Europe, where, for instance, the price of wheat has just been fixed at £38 a ton, the price of barley at £33 and the price of beef at the figure already quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
    With this set-up, and the obvious efficiency of production in this country, a simple system leading to the production of all the food we need is, surely, the aim to go for. Mr. Paul Chambers, the Chairman of I.C.I., who is regarded as reasonably competent, put a figure on this at the Oxford farming conference. He pointed out that about £700 million worth of the food we imported came from temperate zones—that is, food which we could grow in this country. He suggested that we could grow about £250 million worth. This would make an immense contribution to our balance of payments. If we could increase production by £50 million a year, the saving would be far greater than any contribution which the Germans could make towards the cost of our Armed Forces or anything else. To those who are worried about exports and who will buy from us abroad, I reply that the British farmer is as good a consumer as he is a producer.
    The world population is increasing enormously. We are still buying nearly half our food from abroad, and we must have an expansion of production. I am quite certain, in spite of the protestations from the benches opposite, that this Review has grievously disappointed the British farmer. We are not all farming barons in East Anglia or in Strathmore. A very large part of our production, much
    1718
    more than the 25 per cent. referred to on the Front Bench, comes from the farmer in the inner range who is not particularly prosperous. It would not have cost much, if anything at all, to help him. Out of a rise of 4d. on milk at the ultimate retail end, 3d., apparently, is going to the distributors and only 1d. is to go to the farmer. It may work out slightly differently, but that is how it appears to go.
    The Minister of Agriculture says that we cannot have a cost-plus economy, but this is precisely what happens in the distributive trade. I am glad to hear that the milk distributors' agreement is now to be readjusted so that some efficiency creeps in. Distributors have been making a great deal of money. Costs have risen, and awards to them have risen because the system is based on a broad sample of distributors. What is not taken into account is that, as soon as one goes beyond a round of 6,000 gallons, enormous economies of distribution can be made and, of course, one can make a large amount of money. I am glad to know that this is to be looked into and that the Minister will not put up with a cost-plus economy any more.
    I have one or two points to raise with particular reference to marginal and hill land. In Scotland the removal of the quality premium will do a good deal of harm. I agree that beef could easily have gone up. We shall need more and more beef in this country, and we are not likely to be able to get it from our traditional sources, not even from New Zealand. If the Japanese can "pinch" tanker orders from us, they can do enough to buy beef from New Zealand to feed their people. Plainly, there is a world shortage of beef. We see the evidence everywhere. People are, quite rightly, eating more beef. Even the Argentinians are eating more of their own beef. No increase in production which we can have will make up for the increased consumption in various parts of the world, particularly those parts where there is now a much higher production of industrial goods.
    Milk and beef are interrelated. The Minister has not explained exactly what he intends to do about the small farmer who is going out of milk. There is no question but that small farmers will go out of milk. Even had the price gone

    1719
    up another 1d., a lot of them would have gone out. This is why there should have been much more encouragement to go in for beef. I welcome the schemes for reorganisation, the improvement in the advisory service and so on. These things are all first class, but there is no real substitute for an attractive price at the end of the line, so that the feeder can pay more for stores.
    Sheep farming will suffer badly. I do not see why sheep farmers should not have had a little encouragement. We could build up a big export trade in sheep, and the agreement with New Zealand should allow for an expansion of production because, of course, mutton is an alternative to beef.
    The increase in the potato guarantee is, perhaps, unimportant. I would much rather pin my faith on the discussions which I understand are going on about the quicker implementation of a buying programme when the Board thinks that there is trouble ahead. I should very much like to see this done on a regional basis because we suffer continually in Scotland—the same is true in other remote areas or places where transport costs between producer and consumer are high—
    Sir Herbert Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman carry his advocacy so far as to suggest variations between early and main crop potatoes?
    Mr. Mackie: Earlies present a much more difficult problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because they must be got off the ground in a certain time. If we had the main crop secure, I should regard the present arrangements for earlier as reasonable satisfactory. I may be saying this simply because I am not an early potato grower, but it is the main crop about which we are principally concerned.
    In many parts of the North, farmers and crofters are very worried about the disparity between the Crofters Commission grants and the winter keep grants. In some cases, figures can be produced showing that there is a higher return from the winter keep grants than there is from the Crofters Commission grants. They should be lined up one with the other.
    1720
    It is disappointing that we have had no incentive to improve hill land. Hill land is one of our last reservoirs of new land. It is vital to have proper incentives for the reclamation of land. I do not mean simply ploughing up old grassland. I am thinking of the proper way to tackle reclamation, drainage and the rest. These incentives should be given and a definite programme set going. This is something which we expected, but we did not get it.
    Many of these criticisms are factual and apply to particular districts, but I must say that the Minister of Agriculture has missed a great chance in this Review to make people expansion-minded. He said that this was his own doing, and he rejected any idea that he was being influenced by the Treasury. I hope and trust that he took the Secretary of State for Scotland into his confidence, but he said that it was indeed his own Review. We appreciate that this is being very British, with the C.O. taking all the blame, but I think that the Minister made an immense mistake and that the Government as a whole have made a mistake.
    Here we have an industry which can expand. Indeed, we have evidence that it can expand at a reasonable price level. Instead of that, we shall save a very little money temporarily. It is much more important to set going the long-term expansion which ought to take place, and must take place, if we are to obtain a decent balance of payments position. The Government appear to have lost the chance to do this by sticking too closely to Tory policy. If they had, instead, done what they said they would do when they were in Opposition, and introduced a new system of support and bought far more of our cereals and meat through a commission and released it on the market at a guaranteed price, we should have an entirely different set-up. If the price of food went up marginally, many economies could be made in the distribution system. It is said that for every £1 the consumer pays in the shop, the farmer gets 6s. Between those two figures there is immense room for improvement.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Has the hon. Member ever distributed?
    Mr. Mackie: Yes, indeed. I should like to see the Government distribute a little more as well in order to increase

    1721
    production and get a proper return from the farming industry. All over the country there are efficient farmers. I am glad that the Minister is producing schemes for amalgamation and for improving the structure of farming, but the first essential is to gain the confidence of the farmer, and I should like another Review before it is too late.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), I must declare my interest in the subject. As a farmer, I am disappointed with every Price Review. I think that the Price Review is becoming absolutely unreal. It is based on foundations which seem to me to be almost fictional. When we get the result year after year and examine the White Paper, it makes one wonder just how the Price Review is fixed.
    The Price Review gives factors of agricultural values which, when they are considered over all the 450,000 farmers in the country, are completely unassessable. Agriculture is not like industries which have branches in different parts of the country. In the agricultural industry we have 450,000 holdings which are very diverse in structure, development, stocking and production. Yet the whole lot are measured with one measuring rule.
    Right at the beginning we had incorporated in the Price Review the efficiency element and the increased production element. On the assessment of the increased production element farmers are praised for increased production, but on the assessment of the efficiency element they are punished for it because a price is fixed which they themselves have to absorb. Out of the £29 million we have to absorb £18½ million spread over 450,000 farmers.
    Paragraph 6 of the Price Review says:
    "Most of the output of the industry is produced by about a quarter of our 450,000 agricultural holdings."
    So most of the production comes from one-quarter; that is where we get the increased efficiency. That section can absorb the £18½ million in its proportion, but the £18½ million is spread over all the 450,000. What does the White Paper say about this? It goes on:
    1722
    "On the other hand half of our holdings produce only a very small part of the industry's output."
    It also says:
    "The remaining quarter…consist mostly of small and medium-sized farm businesses."
    They are ones which just provide a small living for the occupier.
    If there were one level right throughout the industry, it would be fair for the industry to absorb the £18½ million. But three-quarters of the industry has to absorb its proportion of the figure year after year. This can be done only by taking it out of the farmer's livelihood. The industry cannot absorb it out of increased production. There is no scope in the farms to absorb this increased production, and so that figure has been taken year after year out of the farmer's livelihood. Today, this has reached a point where the farmer cannot carry it any further. That is why the farmers are going out of business. In all the Price Reviews we are dealing with unrealities and not with the actual position of the farmers. It comes to absolute absurdity when weather conditions are assessed financially. The N.F.U. statement which all hon. Members have had states on page 4:
    "Between the end of the war and the early I950s, real income increased by about 20 per cent. on the basis of actual yields and 14 per cent. when adjusted to normal weather conditions."
    In other words, these things are assessed according to the weather. If we go much further we shall be assessing a shower of rain in pounds, shillings and pence.The statement goes on to say,
    "On the basis of actual weather conditions, the net income is only slightly above the 1952–53 level; on a normal weather basis, the net income is still 1½ per cent. below that level."
    It becomes quite ridiculous when normal and actual weather conditions are used in assessment of agricultural production and values. We are dealing in unrealities in these terms.
    My right hon. Friend said that 25 per cent. of these farms produce 70 per cent. of our agricultural output while the other 75 per cent. of holdings produce the remaining 30 per cent. of output. Let us consider milk production in relation to these figures. There is undoubtedly great disappointment in the agricultural community about the milk

    1723
    price of 1d. per gallon. Why is this? It is because, over the years, these farmers have absorbed the costs. Last year they were granted 2½d. per gallon, but that did not cover what they had absorbed in the Previous ten years—nothing like it. They were still out of pocket.
    Speaking on 25th January, the President of the N.F.U. said:
    "From 1955 to 1964 the costs increased to the farm by £218 million. The guaranteed price increased to him by £76 million, leaving him to absorb £142 million."
    The small farmer cannot, out of increased production, absorb these costs. He has done so out of his livelihood all the way through and he cannot do it any longer. I say quite frankly that the small milk farms often just cannot expand. They require more buildings, but first of all they require more land. The need is for amalgamation of small farms into economic units so that they can become good family farms. I have hammered this point year in and year out in this House. I first raised it 20 years ago, and I have done so in every agricultural debate that I have spoken in since.
    It is pathetic to see small farmers struggling to get a living and, in order to meet the Price Review charges put upon them time and again, reducing the standard of living of their families. There are 33,557 farms with nine cows or less. That figure includes some farmers who keep a cow for domestic use. A living cannot be made out of nine cows or less. There are 34,803 farms with from 10 to 19 cows. They can do a little better but cannot make a good living out of 19 cows. There are 22,680 farms with between 20 and 29 cows. Thus, there are 91,000 farms where, in absorbing all these costs placed upon them year by year, living standards have to be reduced. That is why the milk farmer is disappointed. He is disappointed because he cannot carry on, because he just cannot absorb these costs and will have to get out.
    When he is taking these costs out of his living, where can he find the capital to buy more cows, to get more land so as to increase his holding and to put up new buildings? New buildings are needed in almost every type of farm. The amalgamation of farms is an absolute necessity, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend
    1724
    is introducing it in this Price Review. I hope that he gets along with it quickly. In amalgamating farms, I am certain that he will put thousands of farmers on a better financial basis and a higher standard of living than they have ever experienced.
    Now I shall tread on someone's corns. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite had better wait to cheer until they hear who it is. One thing that the Labour Party has always been afraid of is an increase in the cost of food. In the 1945 to 1951 Parliaments we refused to deration towards the end, not just because there were shortages, but because we were afraid that the price of food would increase. When the Conservatives came in they removed rationing after about three years. We realised then that the housewife, if she could go into a shop and make the purchases she wanted, would pay for them—and she did. Prices went up and the housewives paid them because they had free choice.
    Milk is worth more than the housewife is paying today. When I consider the price of beer and see it going down people's necks and then consider the price we are giving for milk—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about whisky?
    Mr. Kenyon: My hon. Friend knows more about whisky than I do.
    Mr. Hughes: Price.
    Mr. Kenyon: I do not know what the price of a pint of beer is. How much is it?
    Mr. John Brewis: Would the hon. Gentleman like to know that the price of lemonade has gone up from 3d. pre-war to 11d., with ½d on the bottle pre-war and now 3d.?
    Mr. Kenyon: Will somebody tell me the price of beer.
    Hon. Members: 1s. 6d.
    Mr. Kenyon: I am told that the price of a pint of beer is 1s. 6d. The price of a pint of milk is 9d. and there is no comparison between their respective food values.
    An Hon. Member: We cannot get drunk on milk.
    Mr. Kenyon: No, but the price paid for beer includes paying for 97 per cent. water. If the people of this country can pay for beer to that extent, they can pay a little more for milk.
    The assessment of values by the housewife is most interesting. A potato merchant told me only yesterday that he was selling home-grown potatoes at five lbs. for 1s. 3d. and imported new potatoes—I do not know whether they came from the Canary Islands, the South of France, or Spain—at 1s. a lb. He can sell more new potatioes at 1s. a lb. than he can sell home-grown potatoes at five lbs. for 1s. 3d.
    These are the values which the housewife herself places on foodstuffs. I say to my right hon. Friends that we need not be afraid of getting better value for farming commodities, because if the food value is there and the quality is good, the housewife will pay the price. My right hon. Friends should keep that in mind.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider some of the prices which have risen? For instance, the price of bread has gone up by 57 per cent., but the housewife pays it quite happily.
    Mr. Kenyon: The prices of many things have risen. Housewives have to pay some of them, but they do not have to pay more than 9d. a pint for milk at the moment
    I have been critical of the small farmers' scheme for a long time. I have seen it working on many farms. It works all right when priming the pump in the three years when the small farmer is given fertilisers, or bought cattle, or machinery and so on. But what happens when that period ends and the small farmer is thrown back on his own resources? In 50 per cent. of the cases he goes back to his former position. He cannot keep up the capital requirements of his farm.
    Because of this the Ministry ought to be very careful about where it makes these small farmer grants. It ought to examine the whole situation and realise that unless the small farmer has resources which will enable him to keep going and
    1726
    to improve and increase after receiving the grants. giving the grants is a waste of money.
    Finally, I come back to the hills. The potential production from the hills is tremendous. The hills can provide the sheep which we need to meet our meat requirement. They can provide stores for both meat and dairy. They can provide poultry. If only we can put the hill farmers in a proper working position, the whole of farming will benefit.
    But this is a tremendous task and we have not yet realised what it means. These are the farms of little production and somehow there is no urge among the hill farmers to increase production. They are happy to carry on as they are. The capital requirements for changing these farms are colossal. First there is the need for new buildings and new buildings cost a great deal of money today.
    However, if we are to improve and increase the production of these farms, they must have proper buildings, because on the hills more than on the lowlands proper buildings are required. On the hills we have to take our stock indoors six weeks before it is done in the Midlands and the South and the North, and in the spring we have to hold it back six weeks because the grass has not grown.
    We need these buildings for wintering the cattle. What is not realised is that in summertime we can carry three times the amount of stock which we can carry in the winter. The grass grows in spring and summer, but then we do not have the stock to put on the land because we have not been able to carry it through the winter. The second thing the hill farmer needs, therefore, is more meadowland. He has to make more meadowland out of the upland slopes so that he can gather sufficient fodder to carry his summer stock through the winter.
    That is what is needed and that is the greatest difficulty of all. If they could buy or grow sufficient hay and other fodder to carry the summer stock through the winter, hill farms could double their output in very little time. But the buildings are required and the meadowland is required. If we can do that, we shall make a contribution to the agriculture of this country second to none.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Kenyon: This is not the first time that I have been preaching a sermon when the congregation has thought that I have finished and I have not.
    The picture is changing with the advent of electricity on many hill farms. We have been defeated in times past by the weather in gathering hay. Hay has been ruined year after year. But today we have the opportunity of putting in barn hay driers. Barn-dried hay is the finest fodder that we can get. I know that many farmers go on to silage, but silage stinks and it is mucky. It is all right for the farmer who can turn the working of silage over to his labourers, but he would not have it if he had to do it himself. The farmer can overcome this difficulty by having barn hay dryers.
    I am confident that if the farmers can get the capital—this is where the Minister comes in—not the sort of capital to which reference was made on a television programme on Sunday afternoon on which farmers have to pay 8½ per cent. interest, but cheaper capital so that they can improve their land and develop meadow land, feed cattle through the winter, erect new buildings and put in barn hay driers, the work done on the hills will equal anything done in either Norfolk or Lincolnshire.
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Kirk: I realise that an absence of a little over five months from the House does not entitle me even to the dubious advantages of semi-virginity, if I may so put it. Nevertheless, it is with some trepidation that I intervene to make what is in effect a maiden speech in an agricultural debate. I do so not only because I now represent a very agricultural constituency, but because, as the Minister will I think know, apart from a little local difficulty at Stansted Airport, the Price Review is probably the thing which interests the people of Saffron Walden most.
    I am sorry that the Minister is not in his place—I quite understand that he is very much preoccupied—because I wanted to express to him in the House my personal regret for the reception which he had in Saffron Walden Town Hall. I would hasten to say that this had nothing whatsoever to do with my party or myself. Indeed, it did not
    1728
    have very much to do with the farmers of Saffron Walden. The reception was organised by people who came from a long way away. Many farmers in my area had great difficulty in getting in the town hall I wish that he had had a quiet reception because then the farmers of the area would have had the opportunity to put to him the penetrating questions which I know they were anxious to ask him and which in the general uproar were not answered.
    This Review has, I think, caused general disappointment, and, moreover, a general feeling of deception, among the farmers of this country, and certainly among the farmers of East Anglia, of which Saffron Walden is part. There is a slight tendency among hon. Members opposite to brush aside the East Anglian farmer as if he is making far too much money and that it will not do him any harm to have a knock. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) gave the impression that the East Anglian farmer had had seven fat years and that it was about time that he had seven lean ones to teach him where he got off.
    It is true that in East Anglia farmers probably farm on a greater scale than almost anywhere else in this country. This is not a bad thing. I should have thought that the introduction of economy of scale was one of the things which led to the great advance in agriculture over recent years. As I understand the White Paper, this is one of the things which the Minister is hoping to do through a process of amalgamation, and this makes a great deal of sense. The fact that the East Anglian farmer works on a bigger economic unit enables him to make a bigger return and therefore a bigger contribution, but it also creates its own problems.
    Nor is it wholly true to say that everybody who farms in East Anglia is a "barley baron" driving his two "Jags" and his "Merc" whenever he goes on a protest march. There are many small farmers in the area, certainly in my constituency, particularly pig producers. We have a large number of poultry farmers for whom this Review has done very little except give them another knock on the head as they are going down. It is wrong to get the impression

    1729
    that, because East Anglia is a prosperous farming area, it does not matter very much if farmers there suffer as a result of this Price Review.
    Perhaps I can give the House some examples of what effect the Review will have purely on cereal farmers, who are the ones with whom we are most concerned. I take two examples in my constituency. One man farms 450 acres—a big farm, but not the biggest by any means in East Anglia or in my constituency. He calculates that he will receive as a result of the Review £195 less on 90 acres of wheat and £768 less on 320 acres of barley. Also, his rent is up by £340, his wages and insurance by £304, his bill for repairs, fertilisers and fuel by £315 and machinery replacements by £195. Therefore, his total income is reduced by £2,117. The only thing which he can set against this is the increase in value of £84 on 56 acres of sugar beet. He is, therefore, just over £2,000 down on a 450 acre farm.
    The hon. and learned Member for Brigg may be right. It may be that the farmer has been doing too well in the past, but that is quite a knock for anybody to take, however well he has been doing.
    Mr. W. Baxter: What was his net profit on the previous year?
    Mr. Kirk: I do not know. That is not the point I am making. My point is that anybody, whatever his profit, who has to take a loss of that size suffers. On 450 acres this man's net profit cannot be so big. He cannot be a multimillionaire on 450 acres of barley.
    Let me deal with a small farmer farming 104 acres. He reckons that the reduction of his annual income will be only £100, but the small increase in the price of potatoes and sugar beet will not reimburse him for the last wage increase and the tractor fuel and petrol increase. This is something for which the Government have responsibility. They generated quite a lot of the £29 million increase in costs by increasing the petrol tax, by increasing the insurance stamp and by making an increase in Income Tax, which is due to take effect after the next Budget, and by imposing the 15 per cent. surcharge. I therefore think it understandable, to put it no higher, why there is a very con-1730
    Siderable feeling of resentment even among these mythically very prosperous farmers in East Anglia.
    Their feeling resentment turns also on the fact that this is what one might call an incoherent review. It is not plain to the farmers what they are supposed to do. It is plain what they are not supposed to do—grow barley and wheat. What are they supposed to grow instead? Suppose that they switch to sugar beet. They are then up against the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the fact that refining capacity in this country cannot cope. It is not at all clear to the farmers where they fit into the Government's plans or what is expected of them. Surely this could be made plain.
    We tend to think too much of the farmer alone and too little of the whole farming population, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said in his maiden speech. Obviously one of the main costs is wages. I am sure that we all agree that farm wages are too low. We have to attract highly specialised and highly trained men into farming and we are not getting them. What is much more serious is the fact that we are not getting young people into farming. We are running into a situation when even the big farmers, those whose total staff has come down by half during the last 10 or 15 years, as is quite common in my part of the world, in north-west Essex and East Anglia, are now approaching the minimum of their scale of employees. They cannot do with fewer men and they cannot get the men. If to get the men the wage rate has to rise again, as, perhaps, it should, this is an additional element of cost which, against, the farmer is expected to absorb.
    I know it is said that in the present economic situation everybody must absorb costs. When the Secretary of State for Scotland winds up the debate, however, I should like to know from him whether, in the present economic situation, any other industry is being asked to absorb two-thirds of its costs. I do not believe that there is one such industry in which this is happening. That is another reason why the farmers feel that they are being unfairly picked upon. It may be that their reaction is too extravagant and it may be that they have not

    1731
    been particularly clever politically in putting their case. The Government must not, however, be misled into thinking that their reaction is not genuine, because it is extremely strongly felt, especially because they hoped for some performance from right hon. and hon. Members opposite after the promises which they have been making for so long.
    I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said about Price Reviews generally. In effect, we are tending to make too much a god of the Price Review. It might be a good idea if we could use this experience for examining whether the Annual Price Review is still the best way of coping with the farming problem.
    We all accept the advance that the 1947 and 1957 Acts brought to us, but 1947 was 18 years ago and it does not necessarily follow that what was right in detail then is still right in detail today. There are two things which are wrong with that Act. The first is that it does not provide nearly enough flexibility. Once a year, there is this great confrontation between the two sides between the Government and the farmers, and that is really the limit. One saw this with potatoes only the other day. It was impossible to bring in support buying quickly enough to have an effect upon the market. It might have been possible had the Minister not refused to do it the first time he was asked. All the same, even if it had been done when he was first asked, probably by the time that the machinery got going it would have been to a large extent too late.
    I am fairly certain that we shall see a similar situation with eggs before the year is out. I know to my cost, because I produce some, that we have an egg glut, but I am fairly certain that there will be a shortage towards the end of the year. Judging from the chick position, there will be a shortage of birds coming along. Obviously, the Government cannot be expected to increase the egg price, although they might have left it alone at this moment; but there may well come a time a few months hence when they want to do so. If that happens, they will be in grave difficulty because the machinery simply does not exist. Therefore,
    1732
    a greater degree of flexibility is needed, and it is certainly needed generally in horticultural matters.
    The second thing to be considered is whether a one-year Price Review is right or whether, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) suggested, the period should be two or three years. I go even further. I think that a period of five years is needed to get any kind of planning into agriculture. We want a quinquennial Price Review, with an interim Review, say, every 18 months or so to make the necessary adjustments because of the cost of living, the economic situation or whatever it may be.
    I do not believe that we can get by nowadays on one-year planning only. The situation has advanced beyond that stage. In 1947, we were trying to build up production from a low level to ensure that we grew at least half the food in this country for ourselves. We are now doing that and we want long-term planning to prevent the situation which now prevails in East Anglia that everybody has produced cereals because he was asked to do so but now finds that he is producing too much. This difficulty must be circumvented. I am not making any particular political point. It is as much our fault on this side as it is of the party now in Government that this situation has arisen. It is, however, essential that a way must be found of long-term planning to ensure that as far as possible the situation rolls in the proper way.
    There are one or two small points which I should like to make to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I wonder whether, when he replies, it would be possible for him to expand a little more on paragraph 51 of the White Paper concerning agricultural credit. I welcome, as, I am sure, all hon. Members do, the fact that, as the White Paper states:
    "Certain financial institutions will be offered financial backing so that they may more readily give guarantees to the banks for the repayment in due course of short and medium-term bank loans made to farmers and also to farmers' co-operatives and groups to the extent that they are marketing primary farm produce."
    Will that apply to people who are not marketing primary farm produce but who have too little of what one might

    1733
    call landlord capital and too much tenant capital? I hope that the Secretary of State understands my meaning. The existing trouble with credit is that if it is based upon total capital, which is how the banks tend to do it, this shuts out the tenant farmer to a considerable extent and makes it extremely difficult for him to get any capital. I hope that this sort of scheme of Government backing for financial institutions can be used to give credit to tenant farmers in particular who can lodge as collateral their own proven efficiency as well as the stock which they may have. If we could achieve something on these lines, we will he doing a great deal for the tenant farmer.
    The situation prevailing in distribution and marketing—not simply in milk, although, obviously, it is worse in the case of milk than in any other direction—is now reaching serious proportions. I am glad that the Government are to examine the distribution of milk. I am as puzzled as everybody about where the extra 3d. is going. I should very much like to know and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us.
    There is need to have a general review of the marketing situation of all agricultural products and of horticultural products in particular. We have not really recovered from the failure of the old horticultural marketing scheme. It would be a good thing if we could revise our whole approach to horticultural marketing and see whether we can get it much closer to the primary producer. If we can do this, it will be of great benefit to agriculture generally.
    As I said at the beginning, this is in a sense a maiden speech. I hope, however, that the shock which the Price Review has undoubtedly administered to the farming community—and, I hope, to the Government as well—will lead people to examine once again whether this way of regulating farm income is still the right one or whether some other form of longer-term planning would not be better.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) tells us that he has been here before. Although we wish that the result at Saffron Walden had been slightly different, now that he is here we
    1734
    are glad to hear him making his second maiden speech. Certainly, when the hon. Member talked about the need for a long-term farm policy which would raise the standard of life of the farming community and give a food supply to the people he was re-echoing the views of those of us who try to think of agriculture in constructive terms.
    I represent a considerable number of farmers and milk producers. It is useless to pretend that there has not been a great upsurge of feeling as a result of the Price Review. Farmers are definitely disappointed, and I should be unfair to my constituents if I tried to hide that in any way. If, however, hon. Members want to see the real emotional reaction to the Price Review among milk producers, they should turn to last week's edition of what, I think, is the best agricultural journal, the Scottish Farmer.
    There we have many different but nevertheless indignant expressions of opinion.
    What I think was the most extreme did not come from my constituency but from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I read here a speech of a farmer called Mr. Loudoun of Moscow. If hon. Members are wondering what Moscow has to do with this Price Review, I should explain that Moscow is a village in the constituency of Kilmarnock. I do not in this House represent Moscow. Naturally, one would expect an extreme point of view from there. My right hon. Friend's constituent from Moscow is said to have likened
    "the plight of the Ayrshire farmer to that of the Selma nigger."
    I think that is stating it in rather an extreme way, but there are varying degrees of emotional feelings expressed, which hon. Members will find in this report, in which is it said that
    "Ayrshire farmers lead milk situation outcry."
    But there is very small comfort indeed for the Opposition, because I read an expression of opinion of a Mr. John Caldwell—of course, the extremists come from Kilmarnock and not from South Ayrshire—who made what seem very impolite remarks about politics. He said that politics was "a dirty and a rotten game." Just to show his impartiality, after he had stated quite frankly what

    1735
    he thought of the Government and about the Secretary of State for Scotland, he turned to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland and went on to say:
    "The biggest laugh of the week was Mr. Michael Noble saying what he would have done, after having done nothing for 13 years."
    So hon. Members can take it that at the present time Ayrshire farmers take an extremely poor view of the politicians.
    We can, of course, understand that emotional outburst. Everybody who asks for a rise is disappointed if he does not get it, and these are honest expressions of feeling among the farmers of Ayrshire, and it would be useless to say that they are not extremely disappointed and that they had even expected something better from a Labour Government.
    To reduce it to its statistical level, I have here figures about milk producers in my own constituency. I do not take the figures for the large farmers but for the medium farmers. I am told by the statistician of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board that between 1958 and 1964 the average number of cows a herd in Ayrshire ranged from 45 to 47—on the medium-sized farms, not the very small farms, not the very big farms. Their profit in 1958–59 was £1,460; their profit less value of manual work by farmer and wife, £884. The next year, 1959–60, it went down to £858 profit less manual work by farmer and wife. It went down in the last full year of the Conservative Government to £780, and leaving £49 profit less value of manual work by the farmer and his wife. If the House thinks this is a queer way of assessing income I may say that I think that it is perfectly justifiable, because farmers' wives deserve to be taken into consideration, too. In 1963–64 the average year's profit was £900; profit less value of manual work by farmer and wife, £150.
    So we can see that the farmer, the average, medium-sized farmer, is not having what we would call the income enjoyed by the better paid sections of workers in my constituency. I think it only fair to point out that the number of producers went down by 2·94 per cent. in 1962; in 1963 it went down by 3·57 per cent.; last year, by 4·58 per cent.
    The Minister was reassuring today when he said that there was a margin
    1736
    of 45 per cent., but there is talk among the farming community that the time may come when this might lead to a serious crisis in Ayrshire. We must always see the figures in perspective, the farmers' figures and the Government's figures.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of 45 per cent. which the Minister mentioned is not agreed by the N.F.U.s? They would put the figure very much smaller than that.
    Mr. Hughes: There are always statistical differences between the N.F.U. and the Minister, but my answer is that I believe that the situation is serious enough to make us wonder whether it would not have been a wise policy in this Price Review to have been more generous towards the dairy farmers.
    I express the point of view of my constituents, but I have to remind them, too, that the whole question of agriculture cannot be divorced from the rest of the economy, and that our job must be to build up the economy on sound lines in face of the difficulties which have been bequeathed to us by the previous Government.
    I turn to a very interesting article in The Scottish Farmer by its political correspondent who, for me, puts the argument very clearly when he asks what the farmers will do now:
    "Block the road with tractors? Bash up eggs in Parliament Square? Picket Whitehall Place? It would perhaps he more relevant for farmers to join the Aldermaston Ban-the-Bomb march."
    Well, that appeals to me. At least there is a connection between defence expenditure and the Price Review, and there, I think, the political correspondent of The Scottish Farmer has put his finger right on the problem.
    As I have said before, during the past decade or so, we should have been spending more on green grass and less on Blue Streaks, and we must realise that agriculture is as important a section of the national economy as defence expenditure. When we are prepared to prune the Defence Estimates and transfer money for the buildings and other things which are required, I think we are on the right way to strengthen the economy of the agricultural industry. Of course,

    1737
    this is not a new theme for me. I repeat what I have said before, that I would much prefer to see the money we are to see spent on Cyprus this year spent on agriculture, on reclaiming the land, building the buildings, because that would be a permanent investment in the real economy of this country. I am not like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I do not begrudge giving subsidies to the agricultural community if they mean a permanent investment in a sound agricultural industry in this country.
    Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend must not distort my views. I do not object to subsidies as such. I object to the fact that nobody seems to know where they go. Farmers say that they do not get them. The housewife says that she does not get them. The middleman says that he does not get them. Where do they go? If I can find out, I might regard them in a different light.
    Mr. Hughes: I shall enlighten my hon. Friend in a moment or two, although he has attacked me from the rear when I thought he was in a different seat.
    I am not interested in prosperous and wealthy farmers. I am interested in the agricultural labour, the farm server, the shepherd, the people who depend on these subsidies for a rise in their standard of living, and I do not want any irresponsible scrapping of these subsidies before we have worked out a long-term policy.
    Mr. Peter Bessell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the subsidy is provided not merely to assist the farmer but to keep the price of food down generally throughout the country, and therefore assists the whole community?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife has heard those remarks. I do not need sermons on that theme.
    I should like to enlighten my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, who I am glad to see is taking such an interest in this debate. I know where some of the money is going. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) gave us an interesting account of different farm incomes. I have spoken about the small farmer with the small income, and I want now to give some
    1738
    facts about a farmer with a large income. The Daily Express of 8th September, 1964, carried the story of a large farmer who the previous day had auctioned off two Lanarkshire farms, bringing him in £97,750 for 2,128 acres, and said that the sale should not make too serious an inroad into the acreage, because at a recent estimate the owner's estates included 56 large farms in Lanarkshire alone. If my hon. Friend wants to find out who that large farmer is, he will find his name at the top of the Opposition Motion saying that they have lost confidence in the Government. [HON. MEMBERS:" Where is he?"] I do not know. He joined the National Farmers' Union after he became Prime Minister. He will probably read what I have said, but here we have some facts which I think will appease my hon. Friend who is my most formidable opponent in this debate.
    That is a large sum of money for two farms. What happens? Farmers have to go to the banks to get money, and I am told that they lend it at 8½ or 9 per cent. In Scotland overdrafts to farmers amount to £56 million, and in the whole of the country, according to the Farmer and Stockbreeder, they amount to £550 million. If the prosperous farmer succeeds in becoming a bank director, he gets it both ways.
    My constituents are greatly concerned about rents. The Scottish Farmer of 28th November last carried an article by its regular contributor, a working farmer who is recognised as an influential voice in the farming world of Scotland, in which he said:
    "Farm rents in many cases have gone to heights which can be crippling unless the guarantees follow quickly."
    The crippling has gone on but the guarantees have not followed them.
    "Many rents have been doubled, some trebled, and in exceptional cases even more. It is not unknown for rental increases to amount to the equivalent of 2d. a gallon of milk…
    The rent position and the question of security of tenure are bound up together, and are indeed inseparable.
    I know of almost ransom values having had to be paid for the inclusion of a son in the tenancy, if ever such agreement can be bought at all."
    Yet the whole question of rents is overlooked by the Opposition. We have heard many questions, and many

    1739
    speeches, from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but nobody has mentioned that one of the biggest costs to the farmer is the rent he has to pay the landlord. I am sure that the Sections of the 1957 Act which deal with security of tenure are at the bottom of this situation, and this is the view of my farming constituents.
    What about the position in the country as a whole? In The Economist last week there was an interesting article, not the one that has been quoted already, entitled, "A farm of one's own", which said:
    "But it is in the country that the biggest boom of all in rents is taking place. The price of agricultural land is roughly ten times as high as before the war. Indeed, the average price of farming land has more than doubled since 1958, and it is the farmers' oft repeated and sometimes justified complaint that these prices are out of all proportion to the returns available for farming"
    It is because hon. Gentlemen opposite are not representative of the farming community at all that they make no protest when farming rents are forced up, and all this talk about not having confidence in the Government is just so much humbug and so much nauseating nonsense.
    The article to which I have just referred goes on to say:
    "The prospect of eventual planning permission for development is one stimulating factor, but the rise has been geographically widespread and by no means confined to land adjoining the big centres of population. The attraction of land for death duty purposes—it bears a lower rate of duty—is another reason."
    Not a word has been said about those costs to the farmer.
    There is then this rather interesting sentence:
    "British farming land, amazingly, is the cheapest in Northern Europe"—
    It is not much satisfaction to know that here we have been exploited to a lesser extent than has the chap in Western Europe—
    "and in the expectation of eventual British Common Market membership Continental buyers have recently been in the market."
    It would be interesting to know what the Continental buyer would get if he tried to bid for any of these farms in North Lanarkshire. The Opposition's neglect to deal with some of these facts shows the complete weakness of their case.
    1740
    They are trying to exploit the grievances of the farmers for purely political purposes. The farmers know it, hence the remarks of the farmer from Moscow.
    Apart from the interchange of pleasantries in this debate, we have had running through it the undertone of a long-term policy. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), we need more money for buildings, more for land, more for tractors, more for land reclamation. We could get this money if we diverted the resources now being wasted on other things and directed it where it should be spent in the national interest. What would have happened if hon. Members opposite had been returned to power, say, by 50 seats at the last election? We should have had a much worse Annual Price Review than this one.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How does the hon. Member expect his pearls of wisdom to be appreciated when none of the three Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present in the Chamber?
    Mr. Hughes: The Ministers from the Agricultural Department know quite well that I can look after myself and that I do not need their assistance. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland saw me rise, he said to himself that he could go away to his dinner knowing that his case was safe in my hands.
    If the Opposition had been returned to power, they would have had to face the same financial crisis and balance of payments problem. They would have had the £ "groggy", and what would they have done? We were told last week in the early hours of one morning that Ulster wanted an aircraft carrier costing £60 million which, with the aircraft, would total £200 million. These are the sort of bills which mount up under a Conservative Government. There would not have been any money left for the farmers or for the equipment of British agriculture. So I say that, in spite of the disgruntlement of farmers in my constituency who looked for better things, I shall be supported when I say that the only possible alternative for me is to go into the Government Lobby against this ridiculous Conservative Motion.
    8.3 p.m.
    Mr. peter Mills: I speak as a practical farmer; indeed, up to a few months ago, as a working farmer. I have been a working farmer for 24 years.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: A tenant farmer?
    Mr. Mills: Yes, a tenant farmer and an owner farmer—I had two farms. I still take my share of the farm work at weekends, which is more, perhaps, than can be said of some hon. Members opposite. I mention this to indicate that I have a very real concern for the industry and for all who work on the land. I say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I am glad to see is in the Chamber, that what has happened over the Price Review is not just a question of hysteria. It is a question of real concern, there is no doubt about that. I think that the farmers' unions are taking a very responsible attitude. It is perhaps difficult for the unions to control some of their members, but it is not a case of hysteria, it is deep-seated concern.
    The farmers view the Price Review with a degree of sadness and almost with dismay. Not all is wrong with the Review, but the parts which are wrong are very wrong. I believe that the Minister knows this. There is no doubt that farmers have been unhappy for a long time, and it is not only this Price Review that has been the cause. I should be dishonest if I did not say so. Farmers have been unhappy for some time, and there is a grave concern in the farming community which has been building up. I do not believe it is true to say that in the past Conservative Members of Parliament have not protested at some of the Price Reviews. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) had something to say, and I am quite certain that my predecessor, Percy Browne, protested. Had I been in the House I certainly should have protested, even against my own party.
    But the measures taken by my party to control imports, together with other measures, enabled them to give a decent and encouraging Price Review last year. We had encouraging words from the present Minister before he came to power. This gave the farmers a real sense of
    1742
    progress and confidence in the industry. We felt that we were getting somewhere, but I can assure the Minister that this feeling has now evaporated. Many of the small farmers in my constituency were wooed by the false promises of the Socialists before the election. There is no question about that.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Member apply his mind to this point? If Government from his party had been returned to power at the recent election, where does he think they would have found the money to give a greater return to agriculture than my Government have given, considering that there would have been greater defence expenditure? Would they have sacrificed the old-age pensions to obtain the money? Where does he think that such a Government would have found the money?
    Mr. Mills: I am not going to be sidetracked by the hon. Member. I am quite certain that we should not be in the mess economically that we are in now. There is a great lack of confidence in the Socialist Government. We were wooed. Many small farmers in the South-West "dabbled", if I may say so, with Socialist policies. Whatever defence the Minister may put up, he cannot deny that what has happened is very different from what he promised before his party came to power. I am sorry that the Minister is not present, I wish that he were—
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is my hon. Friend aware that perhaps this is a record absence of Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture in a debate such as this, and that I hope someone will explain it carefully?
    Mr. Mills: I am new to the House, but I must say that I was concerned that the Ministers were not present. I am delighted to see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is a friend of mine, is on the Government Front Bench, but he has nothing to do with agriculture—
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): Will the hon. Member give way?
    Mr. Mills: I seem to be giving way quite a lot.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I hate to see the hon. Gentleman putting his foot in it. It so happens that I have a great deal to do with agriculture. The Home Office is one of the agricultural Departments; it looks after Ulster.
    Mr. Mills: I am not going to be sidetracked by that, either.
    I wonder whether the Minister—I wish he were present—remembers his visit to Devon. I wonder whether he remembers his visit to Exeter when he spoke to many hundreds of Devonshire farmers, and what he said on that occasion. I can assure hon. Members that many farmers came away from that meeting convinced that this was the man to follow, that this was the man to lead us. I can assure the House that many small farmers went away with joy in their breasts as they realised what was in store for them under the Socialist Government. I can assure the Minister that this is not now so. This feeling has evaporated completely. Of course, no Minister likes breaking faith with an industry. What has happened is that the Minister has, in the Cabinet, been out-voiced and out-gunned by those who hold the traditional socialist view that agriculture is an expensive nuisance.
    This view is only too clear in what I have heard since I have been in the House and what I have heard in this debate. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) said that this was another £11 million poured down the drain. This is the attitude; and this is a very sad experience for me. I did not expect to hear this in the House. Of course, it is not only seen in this debates; it has been seen at Question Time, and I am certain that rural constituencies will take note of this attitude, particularly those in the South-West.
    Milk is a product which is vital to the economy of the South-West. Many small farmers rely on milk. Hundreds have been going out of business in the past years, and there is no doubt that hundreds are waiting to go out. It depended entirely on the result of the Price Review. The decision to go out of milk production is not an easy one for a small farmer to take. It is probably one of the biggest decisions he has to make, to give up his monthly milk cheque. It is a vital cheque to him,
    1744
    month by month. Such a decision is a serious step, and I am certain that the only reason that they are going out of milk production and taking this big decision is that it is not economical.
    I am sure that the penny which is to be put on every gallon will not stop this drift away from milk production. The drift may not increase for a few months, but it will certainly become an avalanche towards the autumn unless something is done about it, particularly as the price of barren cows is reaching a fairly good price and there is some recoupment on the loss of milk production. This is not a scare on my part. I am speaking as a practical working farmer when I say that I believe this is a very real danger.
    I have said that I am a milk producer. It was not long ago that I was milking fourteen times a week. This is a hard job which goes on and on. It needs to be well rewarded. This is what makes me rather sad as I listen to some of the criticism which has come from the other side of the House. What do hon. Members opposite really know about the drudgery of milking fourteen times a week? I doubt whether they know very much. I would not say anything about a miner with his difficult and dirty job, because I do not know anything about it. I only know that it is a difficult job. I know that some hon. Members will appreciate that milking fourteen times a week is sheer drudgery.
    There is no doubt why young men do not want to go into this side of the industry. They do not want to take on the job of the dairy man. Their wives are rebelling. Country folk would like to taste the advantages of the five and a half day week which industry enjoys. Wives are rebelling against their husbands having to milk seven times a week. I am surprised that nothing has been said on this subject. How can farmers pay their workers a decent wage unless they are recouped? I am surprised that hon. Members from the National Union of Agricultural Workers have not spoken about this.
    Mr. Bert Hazell: They have not been called.
    Mr. Mills: It is most important that farm workers have a decent standard of living and a decent wage. Farmers should be recouped so as to be able to do this.

    1745
    Men will not go into the dairy industry unless they get a fair return for their labour. As I said in the Agricultural Committee yesterday—and I repeat it because I feel that it is most important that hon. Members should know it—no one will sweat seven days a week" tied to cows' tits", as we say in the West Country. We shall not go on doing this, unless we get a fair return for the work we do, especially if we can earn our living on cereals and beef production, which do not require seven days a week. This is a social problem, and I hope the Minister will remember that there is a very real danger of people leaving milk production because of it. This fact must be learned by hon. Members and by the public. I believe that unless something is done we shall see a greatly increased drift from milk production.
    Milk is 15 per cent. cheaper in real terms than it was before the war. I have here my milk cheques—the life-blood of any small farmer—which show that six years ago I was getting more money for my milk than I am today, in spite of the increased costs. In the case of milk, we are justified in asking for a considerable increase. I believe that, as farmers, we have absorbed all the costs which we can in the milk industry. We have put our house in order; there is no doubt about that.
    Mr. J. B. Symonds: The hon. Member is speaking on behalf of the small farmer and demanding an increase in the penny per gallon. Where does he expect the money to come from, the consumer or the taxpayer?
    Mr. Mills: There is no doubt in my mind that the consumer must pay more. I believe that we have absorbed all the costs we can. What do we need to give the milk industry more drive and to cover our costs? I have said before in the House that 3d. a gallon is necessary. It would mean ½d. a pint to the consumer. What is that, to ensure the housewife has her pint or quart of fresh milk daily? We are not asking for 6d. a gallon. This is overstating our case. I am sorry that the Minister keeps referring to these reports of farmers demanding 6d. a gallon. This is not so. A few might have said so, but what has been asked for is 3d. a gallon; I believe that the Minister
    1746
    knows in his heart that this is fair and correct.
    I should like to ask the Minister many questions, but I shall limit myself to three. What advice would he give the small dairy farmer in the South-West? I do not know what to say to them. By what methods could be absorb any more costs on a dairy farm? Is it fair to the dairy farmer to expect him to go on, doomed to a life of drudgery with such small financial reward? We are not asking for a large profit on milk, but a fair profit, so that we might continue to provide our nation with milk. I believe that there is a danger that the supply may not continue at the level required, particularly with our rising consumption and population. I do not believe there need be great fears of over production; those fears have passed. With the modern sales promotion by the Milk Marketing Board, which has done so much to overcome the problem, I do not fear the future.
    I am also concerned about the size of herds. I do not want to see the dairy herds getting larger and larger, which is a serious danger, for one cannot give the care and attention to the large herd that can be given to the medium-sized herd. I do not want to see the farmer with the 30–40-cow herd go out of business.
    There is much that I could say about cereals, beef and poultry, in respect of which there are fresh problems as a result of the Price Review. But there is one further question which I should like to put to the Minister about beef. It is rather complicated and I will send him the full details. It is connected with the supplements and abatements of the guaranteed price of 174s. a cwt. If the Minister works it out carefully he will find that unless there is a substantial rise in the market price, the producers will get only the guaranteed price, which is 3s. 5d. a cwt. less than they received last year. They are therefore no better off with the increase of 4s.
    I could say much more. This reaction by farmers to the Price Review is not hysteria. It arises from uncertainty and lack of confidence produced by the Price Review. We have never had a revision of a Price Review, but there is always a first time. I ask the Minister to think again. The Government must take steps

    1747
    to alter some parts of this Price Review. It is up to them to restore confidence in the industry. It is up to the farmers' leaders to produce evidence strong enough to change minds in the Cabinet. This is a great industry which is playing its full part in the economic life of the country. It is worthy of a much better Price Review than it has had.
    8.22 p.m.
    Mr. Bert Hazell: May I first comment on a remark made by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills)? Ever since the debate started I have been trying to take part in it and to put a point of view for the organisation of which I have been a member for many years.
    I enjoyed the maiden speech of my near neighbour the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). His constituency adjoins mine. I am sure that now that he has got that speech off his chest he will feel much more comfortable, because I remember full well making my own maiden speech a few months ago.
    Agriculture is one of the largest industries in the country, and without a shadow of doubt it has made tremendous progress. Like other speakers, I draw attention to the increased productivity which has taken place. I do not suppose that there is an agricultural industry anywhere else in the world which has taken as much advantage as has British agriculture of the scientific knowledge and new methods of production and cultivation which have been made available over the years. No other country has stepped up its level of agricultural output to the same extent.
    In making his maiden speech the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West said that when he was asked, as a boy, what he would like to do, he was told that he had not the ability to become a farmer nor had his father the wherewithal to finance the project. At that time, during the 1930s, I was an agricultural worker, and I know full well the poverty which then existed in the industry. It existed among farmers on a large scale, farmers on a small scale, and paid employees. During those years of abject poverty, when land was waterlogged and hedges were overgrown, when there was an air
    1748
    of despondency throughout the countryside, when bankruptcy was the order of the day, when farms were unlettable and were sold at give-away prices, the Tories were in power.
    Mr. W. Baxter: Does my hon. Friend recollect that not only were the Tories in power but that it was a Labour Government, which came into power in 1931, which started the great revolution in the farming industry by putting on the Statute Book the Milk Marketing Act, 1931, which was the basis of the prosperity of the farming industry in milk production right up to the present time?
    Mr. Hazell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I well recall that it was Lord Addison, then Dr. Addison, who, as Minister of Agriculture, was responsible for placing the Milk Marketing Act on the Statute Book, as a consequence of which the Marketing Board was established. The hon. Member for Torrington referred to that Board and proudly showed his milk cheques to the House.
    I am also mindful of the fact that the major move in bringing about a prosperous agriculture was achieved under the 1947 Act when Tom Williams was the Minister. It has been interesting to listen to tributes paid to him from time to time by hon. Members opposite and by people outside the House. He was carrying out the policy of the Labour Party, who form the present Government. Subsequently the rural areas had an opportunity of showing their appreciation of that Minister, but, unfortunately, they elected a Government which did not produce the results for which the farmers might have hoped.
    Looking back over recent years, it is clear that there have been a number of Annual Price Reviews which have not been agreed by the National Farmers' Union. When I read statements in the Press and hear them made in the House that the present Price Review has been disastrous, I feel that it must be obvious to those who speak on those lines have not read carefully enough the events of past years. Surely one cannot say that a Price Review which gives nearly £10½ million additional money to the farming industry this year is a disastrous Review.

    1749
    Under the 1957 Act—which I admit was the product of a Tory Government—my right hon. Friend could have substantially reduced the guarantees and, even allowing for additional costs to the value of £29 million, the total guarantee could have been reduced by about £9 million. My right hon. Friend did not choose to do that, although the way had been prepared by the 1957 Act for him to have that action, and instead we have the additional figure of £10·4 million.
    To some extent I disagree with the White Paper, just as I disagreed with last year's White Paper. We are told that the additional cost to the industry amounts to about £29 million. Bearing this in mind, we must look at the 1964 White Paper to see what was stated about costs and efficiency. On page 8 we read:
    "The main item is an increase in the cost of labour."
    When we look at the figures allowed for that increased cost of labour last year we find that the White Paper provided for a sum of £13·65 million. In this year's White Paper, under the section on costs and efficiency, we find these words:
    "The main item is a rise in agricultural wage rates."
    We find, on looking at the figures relating to last year, that the wage rates increase cost only £1·5 million. So £1·5 million was the actual rise in cost, although in last year's White Paper more than £13 million was provisionally provided for that cost. In this year's White Paper the sum of £29 million is allowed for and is, we are told, the main item for agricultural wages.
    I suggest that when this year's balance sheet is made up we will not find this main cost factor being due to a substantial rise in wages. In this connection, when assessing labour costs we should remember that at the time of the Review the number of workers in the industry is the basis on which the cost factor is arrived at, although each week and month we see a continual movement of labour from the land. The most recent published figures show that more than 17,000 regular workers left the land last year.
    This movement from the land is bound to be reflected in labour costs. Thus, the difference between the estimated £13 million and the actual increased cost of
    1750
    only £1½ million. I am satisfied that a similar situation will prevail when the current year's balance sheet is made up. It will not be anything like the level for which my right hon. Friend has provided in assessing the additional cost figure of £29 million.
    The farmers' net income is running at the all-time high record of £472 million. an increase of £63 million over the previous year. This is a substantial increase and must be borne in mind when assessing how much the taxpayer should guarantee over and above the actual cost last year.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the drift of farm workers from the land—and I recognise that he knows more about this subject than most hon. Members—would he say that this year's Price Review has in any way served to arrest the drift about which he is complaining?
    Mr. Hazell: This Review, and any other Review—including the particularly generous one agreed last year because of the General Election—is not likely to arrest the drift from the land, which is predominantly due to wage levels and earnings in agriculture being substantially less than those enjoyed in any other occupation.
    The suggestion made earlier today that the N.F.U. and the N.U.A.W. might agree a substantial rise with a Ministry assurance that the rise would automatically be covered by increased prices, does not carry much weight with me. My experience is that adjustments of wage rates have usually been recognised in assessing the cost factor when they have become known. I do not expect, under a Labour Government, that if the industry gave something substantial, my right hon. Friend would ignore that fact in assessing the cost, and the obligations of the country to the industry, when negotiating a subsequent Price Review—
    Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs would ignore the fact?
    Mr. Hazell: Bearing in mind the interest of my right hon. Friend in agriculture, I am sure that he would give very sympathetic consideration to any demand made upon him in the knowledge that it would give a more adequate

    1751
    reward to the lowest paid workers in industry—
    Mr. William Hamling: Can my hon. Friend say from his experience whether the National Farmers' Union would make such an offer?
    Mr. Hazell: In 20 years' experience as a negotiator on agricultural wages boards, I have found that we have usually had to fight all the way to secure improved wage rates and working conditions, and I do not imagine that there will be a revolutionary change of outlook in that repect either now or in the immediate future.
    The National Farmers' Union is disappointed with the results of its Price Review negotiations, but that is not unusual for any party in negotiations. How often have I entered into negotiations on behalf of my membership full of confidence that my case was worthy of fulfilment in toto, only to come away at the end of the day with a mere fraction of what I had hoped to achieve? Of course, we cannot say that over £10 million is a mere pittance, but one accepts that it is substantially less than those who negotiated on behalf of the farmers had hoped to achieve.
    But no good purpose will be served by adopting methods and making speeches such as have been too common in the last fortnight. I have a paper here showing representatives of the East Riding branch of the National Farmers' Union saying, "Fight the political devils." I presume that applies to both sides of this House because, looking at recent Price Reviews, the farmers have not much to thank the Tories for.
    Such statements do not help the farmers' cause in the community as a whole. The irrational statements which have been made in recent days have probably prejudiced the majority of members of the public against farmers. This is unfortunate. My organisation and I want to see agriculture continuing to maintain its rightful place in our economy. The industry has contributed much. It has much more to contribute.
    I should like to see the country using all the resources available for increasing our production to the maximum in every
    1752
    sphere. I wish that the United Nations placed much greater emphasis on creating a world food bank. It is tragic that nations which are capable of producing more are, because of economic circumstances and negotiations with other industrial nations, forced to place a curb on production levels. With half the world's population still suffering from starvation, I wish that nations which are capable of producing more would do so and make a greater contribution to meeting the real needs of the world's starving millions.
    However, I am a realist. The United Nations has not got down to the job of creating the necessary distributive agency so that we could maintain our prosperous agricultural industry and at the same time assist those who need the results of what we and other nations are capable of producing.
    The hon. Member for Torrington was on a good point when he spoke about the type of job that a cowman has to perform. Whatever is done about the Price Review, whatever price is fixed for milk, I am satisfied that employers will find it increasingly difficult to get workers to take on a seven day a week job. It is suggested that we might move towards small and medium-sized cow herds, but the fact remains that there will have to be a trend towards larger herds. There will have to be some method by which workers can be given time off each week to spend with their families and do little domestic jobs, because I believe that in the future young men will not take on a job which allows them no leisure, nor will they take on a job which offers a rate of pay which falls far short of the rate paid to unskilled labourers in many other occupations.
    Marketing is all essential. I was glad to be able to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Cereals Marketing Bill. The provisions of that Measure are a step in the right direction. However, I wish that the scope of the Measure had been wider so as to take in imports. I wish that we had greater control over the import side, because this would be a considerable help to our cereal growers and would make the Measure more effective than it is likely to be as it deals only with home-grown cereals.

    1753
    I welcome the fact that there is in due course to be a meat and livestock commission. I hope that we shall see a Measure wider in scope which not only deals with imports and home production, but also represents the consumer interest. I want to see effective marketing machinery for all the commodities we grow. There is a great future for our agriculture. This Price Review opens a new door. I hope that as the door is now ajar for new thinking and new ideas it will be pushed wider and that we shall utilise to a fuller extent the possibilities of our agriculture industry.
    The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) referred to the possibility of negotiations covering a longer term than 12 months. I confess that I do not like this horse-dealing every 12 months and if it is possible for the Government, with the industry, to think of ways and means of determining prices over a long term, subject to certain inevitable changes in the cost factor, this would be of great advantage in planning the future of British agriculture.
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. Richard Stanley: I am certain that everyone who heard the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) would agree with what he said about wanting a good return for the agricultural worker. I shall return to that theme later, but there is one definite theme which seems to me to have run through the whole debate and that is that everyone is against this Price Review. Hon. Members opposite criticised it, saying that it was the Conservatives' fault. The Conservatives are all disappointed, and when the Liberal, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) spoke he blamed both sides equally and, therefore, I do not know quite where he stood.
    We feel when we listen to hon. Members opposite that most of them are not very keen on agriculture. This is true, and the Minister knows it better than anyone. They always think that they can catch a speaker on this side of the House by asking us whether we think the price of milk should be pushed on to the consumer.
    Mr. James Tinn: Would not the hon. Member agree that there have been at least as many hon. Members
    1754
    on this side of the House speaking in the debate as there have been on the benches opposite?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not see how that comes into it. We on this side can speak in a debate on nationalisation, but that does not mean that we are keen on it.
    Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Member aware that the two most successful Ministers who have advocated the most progressive thinking on agriculture were Lord Addison, on marketing, and Tom Williams with the 1947 Act?
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is in for a difficult time, because he knows that every Question put to him by his hon. Friends is a dig at the farmers. If the right hon. Gentleman only explained what subsidies meant he would have a much easier time and in future might reach the same stature as Lord Williams. If he had had real support from his own side and from the Cabinet, a fortnight ago "Young Fred" might have had a good win, like Old Tom had last week. If the right hon. Gentleman could explain matters to some of the people who are frightened about food prices going up and are not concerned with giving a fair return to the farmer things would be very much better.
    Several references have been made in the debate to the price of milk. I entirely agree with those who have said that an increase of 1d. a gallon is too little. If the Minister had been brave, taken his courage in his hands and put the price up, he would have satisfied people very much more and would have given much more contentment to the industry which is at present so much against him.
    The other consequence of cutting down on milk affects the number of cows sold and this, in turn, affects the beef herds. Nowadays, except for Channel Islands herds, they are all dual-purpose. If people start to kill off the cows, for which they can now get a pretty good price, and stop producing the milk, the material for building up our beef herds for the future will suffer. This is something which should not be ignored. Producing really high quality beef today does not yield a very big profit. If a man has bad luck and loses one or two, all his profits are likely to go. I am not suggesting that there is not probably quite

    1755
    a good profit on the barley-fed younger ones when one can sell them, but the people who produce really good beef do not make much profit, and, of course, beef in this country like all our other foods, is cheaper than anywhere else in Europe.
    At the moment, the Egg Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union are trying to bring out a scheme for eggs. They have a very difficult task before them. There are many people with comparatively few hens, 5,000 or 10,000, and these are the ones who ought to be protected so that they may know whether it will be economical for them to carry on. There is a tendency now for people to go into egg production in a really big way. In Lancashire, someone is buying a mill and hopes to put half a million hens in it. If this sort of thing develops and eggs are massproduced in that way, the small man, apart from selling the few dozen at the farm gate, will not be able to carry on. If there is no scheme, these people are likely to be knocked out and disaster will come. I regard it as a mistake for the Minister to have taken off the 1d. a dozen. Could he not have waited until, say, next year when it is likely that a scheme will have been brought out?
    It is useless to have over-production of either milk or eggs. No one in his senses wants that, but the Minister has struck a nasty blow at the small egg producer, of whom there are very many in the country. The right hon. Gentleman, by hitting the small milk producer and egg producer, has not helped by any means. Much the same applies to the other small farmers—I am not talking about hill farmers—whose interest is in pigs. Everyone knows that bacon production calls for great skill. It is a difficult job and the profit is by no means great. Once small farmers are unsure of their future, we shall run into more difficulties.
    The bigger farmers could have more security and, being given greater grants, they would be able to pay proper wages to the people they employ. The temptations to farm workers are sometimes very great. When the M.6 motorway was being built through Lancashire, one farm worker, who had learnt his job as a tractor driver on the farm, went off and
    1756
    drove one of those enormous machines which moves the soil and, doing a lot of overtime, earned up to £36 a week. With temptations like that before them, we cannot expect to keep workers in agriculture with the wages which they should have unless there is a fair return for everyone. The small farmer must get it for himself. The bigger ones who employ workers must be sure of securing a reasonable profit. As I have said, food in this country is cheaper than it is anywhere in Europe. Let us see that farmers have a proper return so that everyone can have a healthy, contented and reasonably prosperous life in the industry.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. William Baxter: At the end of this debate, I have five minutes in which to present my case on the very important subject of the Price Review. I consider that a revision of the principle of Price Reviews is long overdue. It is time we got down to a new approach to the problems which confront the agricultural industry.
    I ask my right hon. Friend to consider a very important aspect of hill cattle subsidies based principally on the winter keep scheme. Everyone seems to be agreed that it is desirable and necessary to increase our herds. My right hon. Friend has indicated that this will be done by giving an extra £1 for hill cows and an extra 10s. for calves. However, I suggest that my right hon. Friend would do well to consider cutting down the period during which a breeder has to keep a calf before it qualifies for subsidy. If he could cut it down to four to six months he would help considerably in increasing the herds of upland farmers. The upland farmer has this difficulty that he must get the fodder for the calves, and by reason of the time that they are born, it is well into the winter time before he can sell them. If he could sell them earlier, he would probably be able to keep an extra cow right through the winter time because he would have sufficient food.
    Also in regard to the hill cattle subsidy and the winter keep scheme, Scottish farmers should be put on a par with their English neighbours. It is true that the English system has been altered by my hon. and right hon. Friends by basing

    1757
    it upon the heads of the cows kept on the holding as against the amount of cropland which we have on our hill farms. My contention is that, because of the difficult conditions which prevail in many parts of Scotland, the farmers receive very little subsidy under the winter keep scheme on the basis of acreage being cultivated for winter keep purposes. It would be much better for many Scottish farmers if their winter keep subsidy were based upon the heads of the bovine population which they have. This is an extremely important point.
    Another aspect which deserves much further consideration is the great and difficult problem of milk supplies. I congratulate the Minister upon giving us an excellent explanation of the problem which confronts him and the small dairy farmer if the production of milk increases considerably because one puts a great deal of that milk into manufacture. But what should be devised is a scheme whereby the milk going to manufacturing purposes could be underwritten by a Government special subsidy so that it could be diverted to the manufacture of cheese, butter and so on. If necessary, this should be channelled into an export trade to countries which need and desire the surplus from our farming industry.
    There is no doubt that there exists the great problem of balancing our position as agriculturists with our position as industrialists. There is no doubt that if we do not face up to this in the not too far distant future we shall find out our grave mistake. Let there be no mistake about it; Britain is not, as she used to be, the workshop of the world. She has ceased to be that. Therefore, we must have regard to the co-ordination which ought to exist between agriculture as an industry and industry and agriculture. The preconceived notions of former Governments about bringing into being certain agreements for food, such as those with E.F.T.A., the Common Market and even the Commonwealth, must be revised in the spirit and understanding of the day and generation in which we live. Hon. Members need only look at tonight's evening papers, which contain predictions about the Budget. There is no doubt that the difficult situation in which the Government and the country find themselves, which is due to the
    1758
    terrific imbalance between our exports and imports, is a warning not only to the agriculturist but also to the industrialist.
    The Government must look at this problem afresh to get new ideas and new impetus into the development not only of industry but of agriculture. Let us not forget the simple fact that neither can be divorced from the other. Industry is dependent upon agriculture and agriculture is dependent upon industry. If any Government ever ceased to recognise that simple fact, then their folly would rest squarely on their shoulders in the years ahead. Britain must give a lead in a new conception which must inter-relate industry with agriculture and agriculture with industry.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr Michael Noble: We have had the pleasure today—and I think that I speak for the whole House in saying so—of listening to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Hawkins). He admitted to two things: first, the length of time that it had taken him to prepare himself for what to many of us is a terrifying day, and secondly, that during the war he spent five years surrounded by the Highland Division. I am not certain which of these experiences he will look back on as being the worse, but I am sure that we all enjoyed the way he spoke, appreciated very much the things he said and hope to hear from him on many other occasions.
    A few days ago in the town of Dunblane in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland addressed what I know well to be a rather terrifying meeting of the N.F.U. He told the farmers that they did not need a referee but somebody who was on their side. This is only too obviously apparent, because the farming community has always looked to the Minister of Agriculture in England and to the Secretary of State in Scotland as being persons who were on their side and who were prepared to fight on their behalf if necessary with their colleagues in the Cabinet.
    It is right and proper for the farmers to feel that way. In this context, I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in a debate on agriculture in 1960 when there was also a certain amount

    1759
    of serious worry by the farming community. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "We are dealing with a serious subject, because Scottish farmers do not get upset over nothing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 28th June, 1960; c. 108.]
    If it was serious then, how much more serious is it today when not only the Scottish farmers but the English, Welsh and Northern Irish farmers are showing themselves to be thoroughly upset.
    So upset are the farmers that, perhaps for the first time in the memory of any hon. Member, we have had the farmers' lobby coming from the furthest parts of the country to give the views of the farming community to hon. Members. They have done this because they have felt that in putting their views to their Ministers of Agriculture they have failed to convince them. Therefore, they have come to the House of Commons, entailing journeys of 300, 400, 500 and even 600 miles, in the hope that hon. Members will see that their viewpoint and feelings are properly expressed today.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, making his speech, which was not so much a speech but more of a lecture, because it was read out—I can remember very well having to do the same, but I do not ever remember an occasion when I was so scared of losing my place that I would not give way to anyone—
    Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true. I was not prepared to give way to what I thought were irresponsible interventions, but I did give way in the end. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have never shirked a debate in the House in my twenty years.
    Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman has become much more pompous since he has been on that side of the House. I know that he has much more to be pompous about, but it is none the less true that he read a very long and in many ways extremely inaccurate speech.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Not as inaccurate as the right hon. Gentleman's.
    Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman has not heard my speech. In the same way that the Minister of Agriculture is
    1760
    suggesting that his speech was better than mine, he has taken it on himself to decide which of my hon. Friends who rose to ask questions—
    Mr. Peart: Why not?
    Mr. Noble: I know the right hon. Gentleman, and I am fairly certain that he was carefully avoiding anyone who could ask him a question which he could not answer.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) opened the debate very quietly and calmly and gave the House a very reasonable statement of the whole agricultural situation as the farmers and my hon. and right hon. Friends see it today. On the other hand, the Minister, whose speech I am certain was written in Transport House—
    Mr. Peart: Do not be silly.
    Mr. Noble: Knowing a good deal about civil servants—
    Mr. Peart Mr. Peart rose—
    Mr. Noble: I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman every second. Knowing a good deal about civil servants and their tremendous political impartiality, I know that many of the total inaccuracies in his speech could not possibly have been penned by them.
    Mr. Peart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the speech is my own. I did not consult Transport House in any way, but I am certain that a Transport House speech would be better than a Conservative Central Office speech.
    Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman has now explained the whole matter. It is usual when one is to read a brief or speech to have it prepared, or at least looked at, by one's civil servants. As in this case it was the right hon. Gentleman's own speech, that explains why there were so many inaccuracies
    The right hon. Gentleman rightly stressed that there were one or two good items in the White Paper. I do not think that anybody would deny that. The extension of the small farmers' scheme, costing about £250,000 in the right hon. Gentleman's estimate, and the new scheme for credits, costing £200,000,

    1761
    are things of which both the industry and the House approve in general. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) that one of the most useful individual items in the White Paper, which is very small, is the special help for keeping records, because this is something in which the smaller farmers in the country as a whole have been comparatively unsuccessful through not having sufficient information about how their businesses are being operated.
    The Minister has done many rather curious things in the White Paper. For the first time in the history of White Papers, I think—I have looked back—he appears in paragraph 66 to claim for the Government some credit for the actual and normal weather basis, although it seems to me a little odd to do so, for two reasons. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on whom the right hon. Gentleman is clearly modelling, himself—I hope that he does not model himself on the same conditions which applied in Lord Williams' day—did on one occasion, like other Ministers after him, give extra to the farming community. In spite of the adjustment for bad weather, extra seemed to be given. On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that because the weather was good—and the harvest was in before he came to office—the farmers could get worse treatment than usual.
    I turn to one or two Scottish points, although I know that this is a United Kingdom debate. In the figures which the Minister produced, the increase of £63 million in the farmers' income, for normal weather, is quite impressive. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to give us the breakdown of that figure for Scotland, because I suspect that the weather in Scotland during harvest time was a great deal worse and that farmers in Scotland got a good deal less on this occasion than their fair share.
    I ask the Secretary of State to consider a rather special point on the problem of milk producers which has not been raised in the debate, although a great deal has been said,rightly,about the milk problem as a whole. As he knows, there are a good many milk producers in islands off the West Coast and North
    1762
    Coast of Scotland, and in a number of them there are also creameries. I have felt for some time that in conditions of this sort, where milk production among smaller farmers is at least in some doubt, there may be a good opportunity of giving special help to producers in these islands because they are easily identifiable and their milk goes almost entirely either into the local market or into the creamery. If the milk producers in those areas give up that type of production, employment will fall not only on the farms but in the creameries.
    Like the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and others, I welcome the help for the hill sheep farmers. I do not think the Minister will expect me to quarrel with that as I made a speech advocating it about a month ago. I also agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) in his advocacy of a special headage payment under the winter keep scheme, which I also mentioned in the same speech. I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support on that.
    I return to the White Paper. What the Minister of Agriculture seemed to be trying to avoid was the fact that the National Farmers' Union has not only quarrelled with the milk price or the cereals price, but has disagreed with this Price Review across the board, in spite of the fact that, as I said, at the beginning of my speech, there are several items in the White Paper which they welcome. I am perfectly certain that this absolute disagreement across the board is a real indication of what they feel about this Price Review.
    The Minister and other speakers have tried to suggest that this is synthetic resentment. I think that the Minister referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe as an attempt to try to work up some sort of synthetic resentment. That, amongst other reasons, was why I suspected that Transport House had written his speech, and had written it several days ago.
    My right hon. Friend could not have been more moderate. If he and the Secretary of State for Scotland have met, as I am sure they have, the leaders of the National Farmers' Union, they will know that they, too, have been doing everything which they reasonably could to

    1763
    damp down the real resentment that is coming up from the branches throughout the country. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with me, I hope that they will say so, because that is my information and I believe it to be true.
    The resentment which the farming industry feels is centred basically on the question of incomes. I accept, as one must, that this is a problem which has been working through the industry for a number of year—[Interruption.]—for 13 years if one likes. The real picture, however—and everyone who has been in the agriculture industry, including the leaders of the unions, knows it—is that as my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, we have been changing from the superb sellers' market of Lord William's day through a period when surpluses, first of one commodity and then of another, appeared in different parts of the world and finally began to appear here. Both sides of the House, have, in the main, co-operated with the farmers in trying to find the right solution to their problems.
    Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) had finally created the situation in which the open-ended nature of the subsidies, which had been a considerable worry to both sides, was practically closed. The amount paid out from the Exchequer in subsidies to the farmer had been decreasing rapidly and, therefore, it was the right moment to give the farmers their chance of a considerably increased income. This they appreciated. They were perfectly certain that the same sort of treatment would be given to them this year.
    The same conditions apply—£50 million less on the Estimates than was expected. From speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, from the Minister of Agriculture, from the First Secretary of State and from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the farmers had every possible reason for believing that they would get the same treatment. The resentment has built up because they did not and because this was a real shock throughout the whole farming community.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that we had also made cuts in milk, but his action was, again, part of a dishonest
    1764
    position, because he did not tell the House that in the year 1959–60 an extra 85 million gallons of milk was produced above the year before, that in the following year an additional 154 million gallons was produced above the extra 85 million gallons, and that in the year after there was another 93 million gallons. In those circumstances, it was absolutely right that the price of milk should be cut because every farmer, and the right hon. Gentleman himself at the time, knew that the situation was impossible.
    Mr. Hamling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Noble: I am sorry, no. I have only ten minutes left to me and I have a lot still to cover.
    The main argument against the Review is that if the Minister felt it right—but I think he was wrong—to hold milk production down to a beggarly penny, and a good deal less than that for the farmers of Scotland, he has given no other real incentives in beef, cereals or sheep to which the dairy farmers who may feel that they have to leave that side of the industry can go and hope to make a better profit.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West who made his maiden speech today, referred, quite rightly, to the very good labour relations which agriculture has had, and I think that he stirred a chord in the hearts of many of those who know the country when he spoke of the special skills which are now growing up in agriculture.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen told the House that the Minister had accepted a meat board. If he has accepted a meat board he may have told the hon. Lady but he has not told the House. Perhaps he will tell us something more about it before the debate is over.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that the Minister had been somewhat dishonest in his statement about cereals, and as this has been a question under dispute I think I should like to try to deal with the position as I see it. The cuts in the price of wheat and barley were reduced to the maximum of 4 per cent. which was permitted under the

    1765
    terms of the 1957 Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has claimed that these cuts had to be made under the trade agreements which were signed last year. When my right hon. Friend disputed this, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) read out to the House the terms of that trade agreement. Under this, what are described as price mechanisms operate in full when the whole crops of wheat and barley exceed certain figures. Those figures were exceeded, as he told us, as a result of our 1964 harvest.
    But the price mechanisms referred to in paragraph 6 of the agreement which the hon. Gentleman read out have nothing whatever to do with the fundamental support prices paid under our Review system. They apply solely to the price adjustments within the standard quantities structure which rise or fall according to whether the home crops are large or small. What the Government are now doing, and let everybody realise it, is not only to operate the standard quantity adjustments—an addition of 7d. and 9d.—but imposing in addition the maximum cuts under the 1957 Act as well and on top—an extra 1s. 1d. and 1s. 4d.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."]
    For the right hon. Gentleman to try to make out that the Government had no alternative is, in my belief, a thoroughly dishonest statement. I am absolutely certain when he has had time to consult the N.F.U. he will find that it would never have signed—they agreed to the trade agreement—under those terms. I do not believe it is the right interpretation, and I think it is highly disreputable for Ministers opposite to try to bring this sort of argument in to defend their Review.
    I said at the beginning that the farmers in Scotland were surprised to find that the Secretary of State regarded himself as a referee and not somebody who should be on their side.
    Mr. Ross Mr. Ross rose—
    Mr. Noble: I have only a few minutes.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is really quite wrong. What the farmers were suggesting was—what the blame was—that we should have a special review
    1766
    kind of referee. They did not suggest I was.
    Mr. Noble: If I have done the right hon. Gentleman a wrong in this I am very sorry indeed it should be so. I am merely quoting from reports of the wonderful meeting he had with them. I think that the House as a whole realises the importance of agriculture to the country, and many hon. Members have spoken of their desire to avoid a split between town and country.
    I do not see him in his place, but I cannot refrain from quoting a comment of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) who said:
    "…I object to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench putting down an Amendment supporting an industry when politically we do not get very much out of it. Why waste our time on these people?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1961; Vol. 641, c. 465.]
    There are many farmers in the country who feel that that somewhat extreme view—I know that the hon. Gentleman has extreme views—is being represented more widely in the party in Government at the moment than in just one or two places.
    Does the farming industry not deserve the support of the Government and the House? Last May I was able to visit Moscow. The right hon. Gentleman went there, too. I was told by two or three senior Soviet officials that they had chosen Britain to have a special exhibition of agricultural equipment and so on because, having made a study of agriculture here, they had found it was more efficient than in any other part of the world. I therefore say that agriculture deserves some support. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that the increase in productivity per man in agriculture is nearly double that of the average of other industries in the country, so it has nothing to be ashamed of there.
    People are suggesting that agriculture is not sufficiently modern. I can only say that from my experience I know of no other of our traditional industries which have so freely accepted new ideas, and new systems, and which have been prepared to put their own capital, as well as help from the Government, behind these new ideas. The agricultural industry has accepted new techniques more quickly perhaps than any other industry, and, as I have said, labour relations

    1767
    in the industry are probably the best in the country, too.
    It has been said by one or two hon. Members during the debate that food prices to the housewife have been too high. My right hon. Friend gave the costs of beef. During the last seven years, over the country as a whole, the cost of food has risen by 17 per cent. Perhaps we might compare that with what has happened in other countries. In Spain, which is perhaps not very similar, it has risen by 97 per cent. In France, which is much closer, it has risen by 55 per cent. In Sweden—and the Prime Minister is always telling us that we ought to imitate Sweden—it has risen by 42 per cent. In Holland, another of the most efficient countries in agriculture, it has risen by 29 per cent. One sees, therefore, that on ability and help to keeping prices down for the consumer, farmers have played, and know they have played, an important part in helping the country as a whole.
    Farmers also know that as a community they have played a big part, which has been referred to often during the debate, in helping with the balance of payments. There is a record, which is now getting a little worn, and the needle keeps bumping out of the groove, about the economic legacy which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite found when they took office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Wait for it. There is also on record the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of this debate that in the last thirteen years the Conservative Party have not done one single thing for agriculture. Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain to the House how it was that he was nodding his head all the way through the remarks that I made about the efficiency, the productivity and the low costs all of which happened during the last 13 years?
    Last year farming incomes were at a record level, something which the right hon. Gentleman tries to claim for himself. Does not he realise that, in the light of this, he and his Government, having lost the confidence of businessmen of all sorts through their incompetence, have now, as a result of the Price Review, lost the confidence of the farming community as well. They have lost this confidence largely because they made promise after promise in order to obtain the votes of
    1768
    the people. It is, I think, even among Socialists when in Government, normal, if they fail to bring home one single chicken from the many eggs they have laid, to face the consequences of that and to resign.
    9.32 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We had two very interesting maiden speeches and one "semi-maiden" during this debate and they merit the congratulations which hon. Members extended to the speakers. I must confess that I did not find anything very uncontroversial in the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). It may well be that he spent too long on it and decided that he would put some bite into it. Who am I to criticise him? The hon. Member said that he lost some of his docility having spent part of the war alongside the Highland Division. As one who was in the Highland Light Infantry, I am surprised that his speech was so temperate.
    We were happy to see the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) back in his place. He could not have received any great comfort from the vote he got and certainly not from the support he expected—and did not get—as a result of the Price Review. I was surprised at the ex-Secretary of State. Why he should call the meeting of the Farmers' Union terrifying I do not know. I was there last Friday and it was the most pleasant, amiable and appreciative meeting that I have addressed for a long time. All I can say is that the applause I got at the end was only a little greater than the applause at the next meeting I went to—the annual meeting of the Labour Party in Scotland.
    I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they rather played up things today. We had the former Patronage Secretary telling us that there were unprecedented scenes after the Price Review, with hon. Members rising from their seats, having spontaneously interpreted the will of the people. We had a Price Review in 1962 in which £9 million was taken off the guarantees, not £10 million or £11 million added to them. In 1958, there was a Price Review in which the guarantees were reduced by £l9 million and the Minister of Agriculture of that time said, "We are leaving £2 million which we

    1769
    could have taken off." The maximum reduction at that time was £21 million. the first year after the 1957 Act.
    Where were the hon. Gentlemen then? They were not interpreting the will of the farmers. The former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) knows this, because he made a speech in that year in which he told us about farmers' unions up and down the country demanding the resignation of the then Tory Minister of Agriculture. He did not tell us about a march on London, but about tractors converging upon London from the farming areas, and about the Scottish Farmers' Union roundly condemning the Government. From Ayrshire, a telegram went astray which demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister.
    How did hon. Gentlemen then interpret the will of their farming friends and constituents? They were the silent senators in those days, all except one—give him due credit—the man who, as a result of the speech which he delivered in the country, was made Secretary of State for Scotland at the first available opportunity. I should like to give this quotation from "Candid Commentary" in the Scottish Farmer of 26th March, 1960:
    "Quoth Mr. Michael Noble, M.P. for North Argyll 'the present system of allocating agricultural subsidies is often like pouring water into to leaky bucket. I am tired of the system whereby a farmer is handed money merely for having something. It kills initiative and makes him lazy'."
    Mr. Noble: If the right hon. Gentleman had happened to be present during the course of that interesting and accurate speech, he would know that I was complaining that, in certain cases, the Government did not give enough to the farming community to make and keep farming viable. I would make exactly the same comment about this Price Review.
    Mr. Ross: This is what he said to the farmers in 1960, when his Government were cutting the guarantees by £9 million. We are increasing the guarantees by over £10 million and we are making farms viable to a much greater extent than was ever done. If the right hon. Gentlernan really believed what he said when he became Secretary of State for Scotland, can he tell us why he did not
    1770
    implement all these things which he spoke about? He told us tonight that he was getting worried about the creameries and the milk producers on the islands. He was not worried in the years when the Government not only did not increase the amount by 1d. a gallon but rdeuced it by 1d. a gallon and then by ¼d. and then by 0·4d. There was an increase of 0·8d. but only on the understanding that farmers would produce a scheme to increase production and, when they did not, it was taken away to the extent of 50 per cent. Hon. Members had all these opportunities and did nothing. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes around Scotland, and Roxburgh in particular, making speeches.
    Mr. Hamling: We now know why they lost at Roxburgh.
    Mr. Ross: We get the reaction from the Scottish Farmer of 27th March in a report of the Ayrshire conference:
    "The biggest laugh of the week was Mr. Michael Noble saying what he would have done after having done nothing for 13 years."
    After only a few months of Government we are starting upon what I think has been accepted in the debate as the very considerable and serious problem of getting right the structure of British agriculture. British agriculture is basic to the economy of the country and to our balance of payments. Many hon. Members do not appreciate that over the last 10 years there has been a considerable increased effort by agriculture in respect of items previously imported. It is wrong to say that we have denied agriculture participation in a growing home market. British agriculture has participated to a great extent, and to my mind this Review and further Reviews which will follow will enable it to play an ever-greater part in meeting the demand and in facing up to the balance-of-payments problem.
    But let us appreciate that the agricultural industry which must do this is an industry which has many problems and that it is not one of which we can speak in isolation, separated from the rest of the country and the country's difficulties. I remember the speech by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I think in 1960, when these reductions were made. He said that the reductions in the guarantees were harsh

    1771
    but that they were right in the economic circumstances of the country. I reckon that the economic circumstances of the country are such that today we might even be criticised for generosity in this Price Review. That is why I consider that it is fair and right in the circumstances—not isolating the industry from the circumstances of the country but looking to the present position and what we have done. In 1960, the right hon. Gentleman criticised his Government—and I give him credit for it—because he said of a White Paper that what was lacking was a failure to give a long-term guarantee; he said that the outlook was such that there was no confidence by farmers in the industry.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in this debate he has been accused by his hon. Friends of being too generous to the farmers.
    Mr. Ross: Unlike the hon. Member, I have heard the whole of the debate. Here we are taking steps—and these will not be the last steps which will be taken—in relation to the problem areas of the industry. They have been dismissed by some people connected with the National Farmers' Union as fringe benefits, but hon. Members should appreciate from the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), which bear this out, that we are dealing with units in which there are only nine cows. My hon. Friend quoted the figure of 33,000 agricultural holdings with from 10 to 19 cows. We cannot expect to get viability there, and we cannot expect, with guarantees right across the field, to do as much as we could be doing to get the shape of the industry right by directing our attention to those holdings and those farms which are feeling the pinch and which, with proper help, could be made viable. We are changing the Small Farmer Scheme and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) will be interested to hear that the figure is not £200,000 but £5 million.
    Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose—
    Mr. Ross: I must get on. What we are doing now is changing the emphasis from husbandry to management to ensure
    1772
    that, within the organisation of business, there will be a greater appreciation of exactly how to create properly viable farms. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley in regard to the present Scheme—that after the three years about 50 per cent. went out of being—were about right. This shows that something is wrong with the present Scheme, for if we spent money for three years on a small farm and then it goes, that must be wasted money. From this point of view, therefore, we consider that this improvement, which brings in Scotland 3,000 more farms into the Scheme and applies it with a new emphasis, will give a far better return for efficiency.
    I will now deal with the milk question, but before doing so I will have a glass of water. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should mention first, in this connection, that the credit position will be improved, too. The advantage here is that we will now help the younger farmers and small farmers to obtain this credit, something which is denied them at present, because behind them will be the Government guarantee. This will be of considerable help to them, and it is the first time that this has been done in the agriculture industry. The Farmers' Union has been asking for this to be done year after year. Co-operative marketing will also help and, with the Small Farmer Scheme, this represents a major advance.
    When we consider the milk issue it should be remembered that we have given a figure of £11 million. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that the difficulties have arisen during the past 10 or 11 years, during the time of Tory rule. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite must face these facts. I have represented a milk-producing area in the House for 18 years. Indeed, there are probably more milk producers in my constituency than in most constituencies. I am speaking about Ayrshire. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to interrupt, but my majority is 14,000.
    What we are giving in the Price Review for milk is an amount higher than anything given before, apart from last year's 2½d. And from the point of view of production, we have seen, as the result of the squeeze from 1958 to 1962, farmers going out of milk production, so we must

    1773
    watch the level of production in relation to the need for liquid milk for consumption and for the creameries.
    We are satisfied that we are reaching the stage of being able to hold the position, and with the increased efficiency and output from the increasing herd—and I believe that in Scotland the average size of a dairy herd has grown from about 35 to about 45, and that production per cow is up by about 3 per cent.—we consider that we are reaching a position which is about right.
    We must face the fact that more than the producer is concerned here, for this is a time when we are trying to obtain stable prices and a proper attitude in industry. Everyone appreciates how vital this is and it would be wrong lightheartedly to pass increases on to the consumer.
    The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mallon said that the increase should have been 2d. Another hon. Member suggested 2½d. and yet another 3d. I had better warn them that they are liable to be thrown out of the union, if they are officials of it, because the Chairman of the Ayrshire branch—at a time when people were demanding 6d.—said to the Press that he thought that if they talked about 2½d. they would be about right, and he was asked to resign. I am talking about what the other side is asking. We see this spread, and I think that the industry's disappointment is not related so much to the Review itself as to the target those in the industry set themselves of trying to get an increase in income of £100 million—25 per cent.—over three years. That is where I think the disappointment arose. Hon. Gentlemen know quite well that the previous Government did not accept that target, and we did not. No Government could blindly accept such a target.
    That is one of the dangers we are in. It is very facile to talk about giving five-year guarantees. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate that the previous Government extended their guarantee for beef from one year to two years, but do they remember what happened? We got a complete glut, the price went down, and there was a terrific bill for the taxpayer to meet.
    I know that the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) was speak-
    1774
    ing in general but we should appreciate that nothing has happened in relation to the price of milk over the past 10 years that gives us any great justification for a detailed review spread over five years. It may well be that we would be far better to have, within a five-year plan, pointers that would indicate to the agricultural community the direction in which we were moving and continue meantime the Annual Reviews; but we could not make such a change without consulting the unions, although it is probably worth talking about.
    It has been said that it was a pity that we could not give the agreed figure for the milk cost increase, but hon. Members will know that there is a convention that I cannot break, much as I should like to, that we do not give these figures publicly. But I can say that the increase we gave more than covered the cost increase. I am sure that the National Farmers' Union will not challenge that.
    We have taken steps in relation to the long-term planning of beef production, and have done so by injecting the help throughout. We start with the increase in the calf subsidy—10s. on steer and heifer calves. We go on with £1 on the hill cow, and then we extend the scheme to cover the dairy-type heifer at slaughter. All this adds up to an additional 2s. on the 4s. per cwt. extra for fatstock, which amounts really to 6s. and is an additional guarantee of about £8 million for beef. We think that this has been done in the right way to ensure a growing beef stock.
    The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe said that it was not necessary for us to make cuts in wheat and barley prices, and that we had interpreted the Agreements too harshly, but it was the previous Government that signed these Agreements. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Argyll to go round Roxburgh saying, "We are in Opposition now—we are thinking about our long-term policy." I do not know what they put in their policies at the election, but we all know that the changes they made just before it implied long-term policies.
    It is true that the Agreements, while calling for effective corrective action, do not specify what that action should be. Let us weigh this up. The Agreements promise that a fair and reasonable balance will be maintained between domestic

    1775
    production and imports based on the supply position at the time of the agreement, and give both overseas suppliers and domestic producers the opportunity of a fair and reasonable share of any growth in the market. The Agreement was signed last year. The market has grown. What happened? The home producer took the full growth of the market, plus 800,000 tons, because that is the extent to which imports fell last year.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: A bumper home harvest.
    Mr. Ross: It may well be. This is just what they were talking about. But what other effective action could possibly be taken than that which the Government took? It is implicit in the Agreement that was signed. We are tied by that to restore a reasonable balance. I am sure that right hon. Gentlemen know that full well. In addition, in respect of cereals we have raised the standard quantities—250,000 tons for barley and 100,000 tons for wheat.
    The question has been raised as to why agriculture should be asked to bear such a high proportion of its costs. Agriculture is unique. Of course it is unique. It is unique because it is agriculture, because since 1947 agriculture has been placed in a unique position, with guaranteed prices and markets and with the injection of taxpayers' money year by year to ensure its stability. Hon. Members opposite, because we have asked farmers to bear a considerable part of
    their increased costs, have suddenly for the first time realised that this has been happening year after year. They know it has been happening year after year. Hon. Members opposite have walked into Lobbies supporting harsh Reviews, Reviews which cut down the guarantees by £19 million and by £9 million.
    The 1960 White Paper—Cmnd. 1249—said this:
    " Every industry, in order to maintain or improve its competitive position, must seek to increase its efficiency…and to use this in part to absorb rising costs.…The grounds for expecting farmers to use part of the gain from increasing efficiency to meet increased costs are the stronger, because included in the Exchequer payments each year is the provision of considerable resources aimed directly at strengthening the industry's competitive power."
    This is what the Tories said when they were the Government. What we have had in the past in relation to agriculture was concern by farmers about where the Tory Government were going. In those days Tory back benchers were silent and silenced by the very man who made such a song and dance about this today.
    We on this side are satisfied that in all the circumstances this Price Review is fair and just and in many respects is a starting point to long-term policies which will bring greater prosperity and stability to the farming community.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 307.

    Division No. 83.]

    AYES

    [9.59 p.m.

    Agnew, commander Sir Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Blaker, Peter

    Chataway, Christopher

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Bossom, Hn. Clive

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Box, Donald

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Astor, John

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Cole, Norman

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Braine, Bernard

    Cooke, Robert

    Awdry, Daniel

    Brewis, John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Balniel, Lord

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-col.Sir Walter

    Cordle, John

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Corfield F. V.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Costain, A. P.

    Batsford, Brian

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Bryan, Paul

    Crawley, Aidan

    Bell, Ronald

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Buck, Antony

    Crowder, F. P.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos amp; Fhm)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Burden, F. A.

    Curran, Charles

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Butcher, Sir Hubert

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Bessell, Peter

    Buxton, R. C.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Biffen, John

    Campbell, Gordon

    Dance, James

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Carlisle, Mark

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Dean, Paul

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Jopling, Michael

    Pym, Francis

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Quennell, Miss, J. M.

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Doughty, Charles

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

    Drayson, C. B.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Eden, Sir John

    Kimball, Marcus

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-Upon-Tyne,N.)

    Kirk, P.

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Emery, Peter

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Roots, William

    Farr, John

    Lambton, Viscount

    Royle, Anthony

    Fell, Anthony

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Fisher, Nigel

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Fletchcr-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Forrest, George

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Sharpies, Richard

    Foster, Sir John

    Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'n C'dfield)

    Shepherd, William

    Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Llovd' Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Longbottom, Charles

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Gammans, Lady

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Gardner, Edward

    Lubbock, Eric

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Gibson-watt, David

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Speir, sir Rupert

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Stainton, Keith

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross amp; Crom'ty)

    Stanley, Hn. Richard

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

    steel, D.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Stodart, Anthony

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    McMaster, Stanley

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Goodhart, Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maginnis, John E.

    Talbot, John E.

    Gower, Raymond

    Maitland Sir John

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Grant, Anthony

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Marten, Neil

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Gresham-Cooke, R.

    Mathew, Robert

    Teeling, Sir William

    Grievem, Percy

    Maude, Angus

    Temple, John M.

    Griffith's, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Mauding, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margrate

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Mawby, Ray

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.J.

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Gurden, Harold

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hall, John (wycombe)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)

    Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Mitcheil David

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Harris Reader (Heston)

    Monro Hector

    van straubenzee, W. R.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    More, Jasper

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morgan, W. G.

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstom, E.)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derk

    Hawkins, Paul

    Murton, Oscar

    Wall, patrick

    Hay, John

    Neave,Airey

    walters, Dennis

    Heaid, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Nicholls, Sir Godfrey

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hendry, Forbes

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Webster, David

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Onslow, Cranley

    Whitelaw, William

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Williams, Sir Roif Dudley (Exeter)

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Wise, A. R.

    Hordern, Peter

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hornby, Richard

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Woodhouse, Hn. Chridtopher

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Peel, John

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Percival, Ian

    Wylie, N. R.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Peyton, John

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

    Younger, Hn. George

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    pike, Miss Mervyn

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    pitt, Dame Edith

    Jennings, J. C.

    Pounder, Rafton

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Johnson Smith, G.

    Powe, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Mr. Martin McLaren and Mr. Ian MacArthur.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Prior, J, M. L.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Albu, Austen

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Barnett, Joel

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Baxter, William

    Aldritt, Walter

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Beaney, Alan

    1778

    1779

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Gregory, Arnold

    Mapp, Charles

    Bence, Cyril

    Grey, Charles

    Marsh, Richard

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony wedgwood

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mason, Roy

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Maxwell, Robert

    Binns, John

    Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Bishop, E. S.

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    Mellish, Robert

    Blackburn, F.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Boardman, H.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Millan, Bruce

    Boston, T. G.

    Harming, William (Woolwich, W.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Hannan, William

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Molloy, William

    Boyden, James

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Monslow, Walter

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Bradley, Tom

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hazell, Bert

    Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Murray, Albert

    Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch amp; Fbury)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Neal, Harold

    Buchanan, Richard

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Newens, Stan

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Carmichael, Neil

    Holman, Percy

    Oakes, Gordon

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Horner, John

    Ogden, Eric

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    O'Malley, Brian

    Chapman, Donald

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

    Coleman, Donald

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Conlan, Bernard

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Orme, Stanley

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Howie, W.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

    Hoy, James

    Owen, Will

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Padley, Walter

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Cronin, John

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

    Darling, George

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Parker, John

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E)

    Jackson, Colin

    Parkin, B. T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Pentland, Norman

    Delargy, Hugh

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Dell, Edmund

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Dempsey, James

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Diamond, John

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Dodds, Norman

    Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Randall, Harry

    Driberg, Tom

    Kelley, Richard

    Rankin, John

    Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Redhead, Edward

    Dunn, James A.

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Dunnett Jack

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lawson, George

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Richard, Ivor

    Edward Robert (Bilston)

    Ledger, Ron

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    English, Michael

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Ennals, David

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Ensor, David

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras,N.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Rose,Paul B.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Rowland, Christopher

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lomas, Kennetn

    Sheldon, Robert

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Snore, Peter (stepney)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McBride, Neil

    Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)

    Floud, Bernard

    McCann, J

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

    Foley, Maurice

    MacColl, James

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    McGuire, Michael

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Ford, Ben

    Mclnnes, James

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McLeavy, Frank

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleld)

    Garrett, W. E.

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Small, William

    Garrow, A.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Snow, Julian

    Ginsburg, David

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Solomons, Henry

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Hudderefield,E.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Manuel, Archie

    Steele, Thomas

    1780

    1781

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Tuck, Raphael

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Stonehouse, John

    Urwin, T. W.

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Stones, William

    Varley, Eric G.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn.G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Swain, Thomas

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Wallace, George

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Symonds, J. B.

    Warbey, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Taverne, Dick

    Watkins, Tudor

    Woof, Robert

    Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)

    Weitzman, David

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Zilliacus, K.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Whitlock, William

    Thornton Ernest

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Tinn, James

    Wilkms, W. A.

    Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. George Rogers.

    Tomney, Frank

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
    The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 300.

    Division No. 84.]

    AYES

    [10.13 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Dodds, Norman

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Albu, Austen

    Doig, Peter

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Aldritt, Walter

    Driberg, Tom

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Allen, Scholefied (Crewe)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Howie, W.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dunn, James A.

    Hoy, James

    Atkinson, Norman

    Dunnett, Jack

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Bagier Gordon A. T.

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Barnett, Joel

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Baxter, William

    English, Michael

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Beaney, Alan

    Ennals, David

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Ensor, David

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Bence, Cyril

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Jackson, Colin

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Binns, John

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Blackburn, F.

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H"b"namp;St.P'cras,S.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Boardman, H.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Boston, T. G.

    Floud, Bernard

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Foley, Maurice

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Boyden, James

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Ford, Ben

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Bradley, Tom

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Freeson, Reginald

    Kelley, Richard

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Garrow, A.

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Buchanan, Richard

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Lawson, George

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Ledger, Ron

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Gregory, Arnold

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Carter-Jones Lewis

    Grey, Charles

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Chapman, Donald

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James(Llanelly)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Coleman, Donald

    Griffiths, Will (M'Chester, Exchange)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hale, Leslie

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hamling, William (Woolwich W.)

    McBride, Neil

    Cronin John

    Hannan, William

    McCann, J.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Harper, Joseph

    MacColl, James

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    McGuire, Michael

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hattersley, Roy

    Mclnnes, James

    Darling, George

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hazell, Bert

    Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    McLeavy, Frank

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    MacPhereon, Malcolm

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Dell, Edmund

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Dempsey, James

    Holman, Percy

    Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Diamond, John

    Horner, John

    Manuel, Archie

    Mapp, Charles

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Marsh, Richard

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Swain, Thomas

    Mason, Roy

    Prentice, R. E.

    Swingler, Stephen

    Maxwell, Robert

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Probert, Arthur

    Taverne, Dick

    Mellish, Robert

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Randall, Harry

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rankin, John

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Redhead, Edward

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Rees, Merlyn

    Thornton, Ernest

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Tinn, James

    Molloy, William

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Tomney, Frank

    Monslow, Walter

    Richard, Ivor

    Tuck, Raphael

    Morris Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Morris John (Aberavon)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)

    Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras,N.)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Murray, Albert

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Neal, Harold

    Rose, Paul B.

    Wallace, George

    Newens, Stan

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Warbey, William

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Rowland, Christopher

    Watkins, Tudor

    Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Weitzman, David

    Norwood, Christopher

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Ogden, Eric

    Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)

    Whitlock, William

    O'Malley, Brian

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Wllkins, W. A.

    Orbach, Maurice

    Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Orme, Stanley

    silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Owen, Will

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Padley, Walter

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Paget, R. T.

    Small, William

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Snow, Julian

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Solomons, Henry

    Woof, Robert

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Parker, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Steele, Thomas

    Zilliacus, K.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Stonehouse, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Stones, William

    Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. George Rogers.

    Pentland, Norman

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    NOES

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Dean, Paul

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Bryan, Paul

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Buck, Antony

    Doughty, Charles

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Astor, John

    Burden, F. A.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Awdry, Daniel

    Buxton, R. C.

    Eden, Sir John

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Campbell, Gordon

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Balniel, Lord

    Carlisle, Mark

    Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Emery, Peter

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Batsford, Brian

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Farr, John

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Chataway, Christopher

    Fell, Anthony

    Bell, Ronald

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos amp; Fhm)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

    Berkeley, Humphrey

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Forrest, George

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Cole, Norman

    Foster, Sir John

    Bessell, Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

    Biffen, John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Cordle, John

    Gammans, Lady

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gardner, Edward

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Costain, A. P.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Blaker, Peter

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    Bossom, Hn. Clive

    Crawley, Aidan

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Box, Donald

    Crowder, F. P.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Curran, Charles

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Braine, Bernard

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Brewis, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Goodhew, Victor

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Dance, James

    Gower, Raymond

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Grant, Anthony

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    1784

    1785

    Gresham-Cooke, R.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Grieve, Percy

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Roots, William

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Royle, Anthony

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross amp; Crom'ty)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mackie, George Y. (C'ness amp; S'land)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Gurden, Harold

    Maclean, Sir Fltzroy

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    McMaster, Stanley

    Sharples, Richard

    Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick

    Shepherd, William

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Maginnls, John E.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd amp; Chiswick)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Marten, Neil

    Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mathew, Robert

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Maude, Angus

    Speir, Sir Rupert

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Stainton, Keith

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Mawby, Ray

    Stanley, Hn. Richard

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Stodart, Anthony

    Hawkins, Paul

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hay, John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Mills Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Steel, D.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Talbot, John E.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Mitchell, David

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Monro, Hector

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    More, Jasper

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Morgan, W. G.

    Teeling, Sir William

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Temple, John M.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Hordern, Peter

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hornby, Richard

    Murton, Oscar

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Neave, Airey

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Johnson Smith, G.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Jones, Arthur (Morthants, S.)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Jopling, Michael

    Pase, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Page, R- Graham (Crosby)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wall, Patrick

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Peel, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Percival, Ian

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Peyton, John

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

    Webster, David

    Kimball, Marcus

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Wells John (Maidstone)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Whltelaw, William

    Kirk, P.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wills, Sir George (Bridgwater)

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Wise, A. R.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pym, Francis

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

    Wylie, N. R.

    Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Younger, Hn. George

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Longbottom, Charles

    Ridsdale, Julian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Loveys, Walter H,

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Mr. Martin McLaren and Mr. Ian MacArthur.

    Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House notes with satisfaction the Government's decisions following the Annual
    Farm Price Review which in its opinion are fair to both producers and consumers; and welcomes the Government's constructive proposals for the longer term future of the agricultural industry.

    MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS)
    10.27 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I beg to move,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk (Special Designations) (Scotland) Order, 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 253), dated 18th February, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be annulled.
    It would not surprise me if, after so concentrated a day on agriculture, by the end of this Prayer you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, wondered whether any agricultural sustenance was adequate or whether something else produced in Scotland might be needed.
    It is not altogether unfitting to end a day of such agricultural activity—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members will listen to the hon. Gentleman addressing the House.
    Mr. Stodart: As I was saying, it is not unfitting to discuss one of the best agricultural products for which Scotland is responsible. I give a welcome, if a slightly surprising one, to the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see. She is perhaps the symbol of the reorganisation of the Scottish Office since those splendid days before October 1964, when the same Minister looked after both agriculture and health. Since then there has been a division of responsibility. Although there will be several points which my hon. Friends and I will wish to raise on what I might describe as the production side of this Order, and thus on agricultural matters, I want to say how very important it is to recognise that milk forms one of the meeting points between agriculture and health. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree with me that in order that we may enjoy good health we must be able to get good food.
    I should like to make it clear that I very much welcome in principle a Measure designed to improve the quality of one of our staple foods in which Scotland has always excelled. In any case, as the hon. Lady is well aware, I cannot and would not wish to conceal my own interest in proposals which have taken quite a
    1788
    long time to reach their present stage. I have no reservations, therefore, about the desirability of such details in this Order as milk having to be better cooled on the farm than it has been hitherto, nor about the new temperature control until bottles of milk leave the retailer. Quite obviously, too, it is thoroughly good to go after improved bacterial standards in both the new grades which are introduced by this Order, and to introduce a compositional standard in the case of premium milk.
    Having mentioned the premium grade, I should like to say that I think it is a most sensible relaxation of the Regulations which deal with bottling on the farm of production. I shall have a little more to say about that in a moment and also about the completely new provision which has been introduced for the mixing of milk from the morning and evening milkings. Hitherto, of course, that has not been allowed.
    I believe that certain consequences may flow from these novelties and amendments, consequences both detailed and general, and that is why I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one or two of them. First, there is the question of the new names, and I must confess that this has exercised me a great deal. I am quite sure that it has not been an easy job to pick the right names. I think the new premium grade and the standard grade were the result of fairly exhaustive consultation with all the interested parties, including the representatives of the consumers.
    However, there is one thing which worries me, and it is the fear that what is going to be called standard milk will be suspected by the general public as being of lower quality than the well-known T.T. milk. I am certain that the hon. Lady will agree when I say that it is very important that the consumption of milk among all sections and ages of the community should not drop or be put in any peril of dropping. Therefore, the first question I wish to ask is: what is going to be done to inform the general public that, far from standard milk being inferior to T.T. milk, it will be better?
    I was looking at the milk consumption figures for this country and certain European countries. We are not by any means at the top of the league, neither are we at

    1789
    the bottom. According to the United Nations statistics, we in this country drink, per head per annum, 148 milligrammes of milk. For the benefit of hon. Members, to show how benevolent I am, I have done the conversion, and it is the equivalent of 33 gallons a year, 264 pints or, on average ¾ pint per head of the population per day. That is something to be reasonably pleased about.
    It is interesting to look at the pattern of milk consumption in other countries. In certain countries—I pick out Ireland, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg—milk consumption is increasing steadily every year, and in certain other countries, Sweden, Switzerland and Holland, the latter of which is a very progressive milk-producing country, the consumption is going steadily down, as it has been doing remorselessly for the last ten years. We in this country have the slightly unusual pattern of a fairly steady level of consumption. I am quite certain that the Under-Secretary will want to keep it this way, or, if possible, to start an upward turn. I hope, however, that she will be able to say something about the propaganda that will be issued when the new grades come on to the market.
    Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, on page 11 of the Order, states that records are to be retained concerning the sale or production of milk for 12 months
    "from the date of production or of any transaction to which the records relate."
    Latterly, we have had news of a new variety or process which will enable milk to be kept for an almost unlimited period. Presumably, the milk would be stored in a wholesaler's depot. I should have thought that if certain milk could be kept for several years the records that were required to be kept would be fairly formidable.
    Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order mentions—it does no more—the subject of inoculation against brucellosis. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will have an opportunity of speaking on the Order. I content myself with remarking that, having got the Scottish dairy industry clear of tuberculosis, I hope that the Department of Agriculture, than which there is no more progressive organisation in Government, will as soon as
    1790
    possible turn its attention to the complete eradication of brucellosis in Scotland.
    Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 contains regulations concerning the mixing of morning and evening milk and the breaking of new ground by allowing milk to be designated "premium" even if it is not bottled, as certified milk has to be today, on the farm where it is produced. This will clearly be a help and an economy to the farmer who may have two herds of cows on two different farms, who at present, if he wanted to sell certified milk, must have a bottling unit on each farm. The fact that he will be able to bring his milk by bulk tanker from farm A to farm B and do all the bottling there is a wide relaxation of the existing regulations. What I find a little surprising, and contradictory is paragraph 5(2), which says that after one has brought milk from farm A to the bottling plant at farm B, where one can bottle it and describe it as "premium", one may not describe farm A's milk as farm bottled. One may describe farm B milk as farm bottled because it is bottled on the farm on which it is being produced. Would the hon. Lady say what tortuous thought has gone into this and why milk on every farm which is obviously of such purity and proper standard of health as to be described as "premium" grade is not good enough to be called "farm bottled"?
    I should like to ask the hon. Lady a question on paragraph 8 of the same Schedule. No one would deny that to count the number of bacteria in milk is the most reliable method not only of finding out how many there are in it but whether the milk is of a high enough standard, but are there not simpler methods which are every bit as reliable? I find it hard to believe that in these days of scientific advancement one has literally still to count the bacteria. Could the hon. Lady tell me something about the Resazurin test, which I am certain is well known to the hon. Gentleman, judging by the intelligent look on his face, which is a test done with dye? I think I am right in saying that it is used by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. I should have thought that if this is good enough for the Scottish Board it might well be good enough for us. I absolutely agree that it is essential to maintain a very high reputation for purity, which is one of the tremendous assets not only to farmers but

    1791
    to consumers in Scotland, but I hope the hon. Lady can assure us that if simpler methods do come along they will be used.
    There are only two other points I want to put to the hon. Lady. I think there is a slight confusion on the question of dates. As I understand it, the period at which the selling of certified and T.T. milk must end is 31st December this year and premium milk starts on 1st January next. There is slight confusion about when standard milk may come on to the market. At first sight it looks as if there is an extraordinary hiatus, because according to paragraph (2) of the Explanatory Note—and, of course, that gives the previous references—"standard" is to be the designation from 1st September, 1966. Therefore, if T.T. packs up in December, 1965, what happens in the interim? It may be that it is standard from that date at the same coolness as T.T. and then a different temperature control comes in in September. Perhaps if I am right in my suspicion of this the hon. Lady could confirm that.
    Lastly, and I think perhaps most important of all, these standards of purity are not going to be raised for nothing. I am glad to see the look of intelligent agreement on the face of the Minister of State.
    The Minister of State Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I was thinking that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be doing very well.
    Mr. Stodart: It seemed to me that he was recalling nostalgic memories of what used to happen on this side of the House in the last Parliament.
    These new standards are not going to be attained at no cost. I suspect that new and more efficient cooling equipment may be needed to bring the coolness of milk down by an extra five degrees, and certainly the operating costs will be higher. What is going to happen? What have the Government in mind about the price that is to be paid for these new standards of milk? Can the hon. Lady inform us on this matter? What is likely to be the differential between the two, premium and standard? Is it going to be the same as the present differential between T.T. and certified?
    1792
    I should have thought that there was a pretty good case for an increase in the differential, particularly after what we have been listening to today, and because of the Government's abject failure to defend the milk prices. I should have thought that they could not but announce that there was to be an increase in the price once this Order came into operation.
    Having said that, may I say that I welcome the principle of this Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will reply to some of the points that I have raised.
    10.47 p.m.
    Mr. William Baxter: I hesitate to intervene in this debate, but I was most anxious to take part in the previous debate, and if I had been called to do so I would probably have drawn attention to this Order which has a terrific bearing on the subject under review not so long ago.
    It is all very well suggesting that producers of milk should get an extra 1d., 2d., or 3d. a gallon, but that would apply to both the large and the small producer, just as this Order does. One has to bear in mind the fact that the small producer—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This sounds suspiciously like a continuation of the previous debate. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the grading of milk, which is dealt with in this Order.
    Mr. Baxter: The cost of putting this Order into operation by the small producer will be prohibitive. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled to say that.
    I have had some practical experience, as a convener, of a health committee which for some time ran clean milk competitions. We found that it was very difficult to comply with the Orders then in existence. Orders such as this are difficult to put into operation, especially in a small farm. In fact, they are even difficult to understand, and I make bold to say that I am unable fully to understand this Order. Will my hon. Friend tell me what this means? Will she turn to page 4
    "Part II—Licences to Use Special Designations".
    Paragraph 3(2) reads:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Order a local authority shall on application being made

    1793
    to them in that behalf grant a licence to the applicant authorising him to use the special designation specified in the application; and such a licence shall be in the appropriate form specified in Schedule 7 to this Order or in a form substantially to the like effect."
    I will give way to my hon. Friend if she will give me an explanation of what that paragraph means.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I often share my hon. Friend's views about the difficulty of understanding incomprehensible legislation and Orders, but on this occasion the only way in which I could explain would be by reading out those words, because I find them quite clear.
    Mr. Baxter: Can my hon. Friend explain what is meant by:
    "shall on application being made to them in that behalf grant a licence to the applicant…"
    What does that mean?
    Mrs. Hart: It means that when somebody applies to the local authority to use one of the designations in paragraph 3(1), the local authority shall grant a licence to the applicant provided that the application has been made in the special form which is specified. In that case he should have no difficulty in getting a licence from the local authority to use one of these designations.
    Mr. Baxter: That seems very simple. If that is what it means, why does it not say so? It says nothing of the sort.
    In paragraph 2 we read:
    "The Interpretation Act 1889 applies for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament."
    Has the small farmer, the milk producer, the man who is retailing a few gallons of milk every morning, to go to this 1889 Act for an interpretation? It seems to me rather ludicrous and fantastic. I invite my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 11 on page 16:
    "Where the holder of the licence takes milk from a bulk container and puts it into another bulk container he shall put it into the other container…"
    My goodness! Where else would he put it if he were not to put it in the container? It goes on:
    "which shall then be closed as soon as possible after the opening of the first-mentioned container."
    I ask my hon. Friend—was this in our manifesto.
    Mrs. Hart: We are responsible only for one or two changes in the Order which has been operating, and under which he and his hon. Friends have been operating, quite happily for some years. We are considering the changes in the Order.
    Mr. Baxter: I remind my hon. Friend that phraseology is a very important factor and that to be able to understand the Order is very desirable. It is not sufficient to say that we inherited the Order from a previous Administration and have no responsibility for the phraseology which we are presenting to the House. We have 100 per cent. responsibility for the Order being placed before the House. Too much of this is blamed on someone else. We must face up to our responsibilities. It is fundamentally wrong and a contradiction of the better beliefs and qualities of the Labour Party to use phraseology which it is impossible to interpret in a reasonable and sensible way.
    Orders and Regulations should not be so difficult to interpret that one need consult a lawyer. I believe that even local authorities will have difficulty in giving a true and sensible interpretation of this Order. It is not for us on this side of the House to enable lawyers and Q.C.s to make fat fees from this sort of thing, not that I am against them receiving fees. We should not make our legislation so difficult to understand by the poor, honest, hard working farmer.
    If we do not realise this we will get into difficulties. We should be having 100 per cent. regard for the hard working, small producers and they must be able to understand these things. If we do not have 100 per cent. regard for them we may run into the difficulties that are being faced by Russia about its large collective farms. That country is having to go back to the small farmer to help it get out of its production difficulties. Let us learn from experience, from wherever it comes and irrespective of ideologies.
    Our legislation must be capable of interpretation by the ordinary man, for it is he who produces the wherewithall which enables us to lounge back in our nice seats here. He also pays our salaries. It behoves my hon. Friends to simplify the law so that it can be understood by those who operate and act under our Regulations. If I were in the seat of the mighty

    1795
    I would take the Order back and give its wording further consideration.
    10.58 p.m.
    Mr. George Younger: I do not intend to delay the House for long. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in welcoming the Order. I hope and believe that it will be a great encouragement towards improving quality milk production and I am certain that it will be welcomed by producers and distributors throughout the country. I hope that the Under-Secretary will find my remarks helpful.
    My hon. Friend raised the question of the names of the two new grades. I appreciate how difficult it is to select names for any product and I am sure that qualities of milk are no exception. However, I reinforce what my hon. Friend said about the use of the word "standard". Although a perfectly respectable word, I suggest that "standard" has an implication of mediocrity. I am sure that the last thing any of us wish to imply in the standard of milk being produced is mediocrity, but it is a negative sort of word.
    This is not merely a matter of academic interest, because we must remember that milk is a product which is competing strongly with many similar products that we drink. It is competing in a vigorous market and is subject to heavy advertising, as are the products which compete with it. Any expert in advertising or marketing will say that it is important that the name of a product should be absolutely right. I suggest that the ideal name here is the one we already have, which is "certified".
    Why was it not thought possible to use the description "certified" for what is now to be called the "standard" grade under this Order? It may be very difficult to have second thoughts at this stage, but I hope that the hon. Lady will think about this suggestion seriously. Once the present "certified" grade has ceased to be used, might it not be a good idea to use its name for the standard grade? I would emphasise that the advertising and marketing of milk is extremely important, and if the name is right it will be that much easier.
    While on advertising I would mention, incidentally, my hope that proper
    1796
    consideration will be given to the advertising of these new grades. They will not make the impact they deserve if they are merely advertised under the block description of "milk". I think that producers and distributors would welcome the advertising of these grades under their new names, because at present many of them feel that they pay a levy for advertising which merely advertises the product as a whole while those producing good quality milk very often have to put their own money into advertising it.
    Paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 2 says that the container "may" carry the date of production. It is quite right that where the producer is also the distributor this provision should be permissive, and not imperative, but where the producer sells his product to probably a very large distributor who may hold very large stocks all over the country, is it not very important that the day of production should be marked on the container? In that case, is it enough that this provision should be permissive? Problems of stock control of such items are very difficult, and control is very apt to slip into slack ways and disuse. I should have thought that, particularly where large distributors buy their supplies from another source, there was a good case for making it obligatory to have the day of production marked on the container.
    The sampling procedure mentioned in the Order seems to be quite all right, with one possible exception. Would it not be right for provision to be made that the licensee most be given the chance to be present when a sample is taken from a bulk tank? I accept that when a sample is taken from a milk bottle on a van, it is neither possible nor really necessary for the licensee, who may suffer if the sample is not up to standard, to be present, because the container in which the sample is placed is sealed. The milk in a bulk tank has been stirred up, the sample taken from below the surface, and so on, as laid down in the Order, the licensee, who may suffer if the sample is said to be below standard, should have the right to be present. That happens almost invariably at the moment, but it would be a safeguard to stipulate that it must be done.

    1797
    My next point concerns the tribunal. Is it not very important to include in the tribunal a representative of the producers? As the Order stands, the tribunal comprises a chairman and two members, one of whom is to represent the distributors. But it does not have a representative of the producers. I think it important that it should, because if a licensee is threatened with losing his licence it is very likely that the reason why his licence is called in question may, rightly or wrongly, be alleged to be the responsibility, or partly the responsibility, of the producer of the milk. It would be a safeguard to have a representative of producers on the tribunal.
    It might be argued that this would make the membership wrong, the number then being four instead of three. If that is a major disadvantage, would it not be possible to alter the terms slightly to provide that there should be one representative who is a producer and distributor? Both interests would then be well covered in the tribunal.
    I hope that the Order will be generally welcomed by everyone in the House and also in the trade. All of us should support the aim to have high standards, but the equipment necessary to comply with the Order will be greater in quantity and more expensive to install and maintain than that now possessed by many producers. Dairy farming is a high-cost operation both in men and machinery, and if the scheme is to be successful the Government will have to show much more genuine concern about the poor return and low income which dairy farmers will experience under the present Price Review.
    11.7 p.m.
    Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I have first to declare my interest as a producer-retailer and as a member of the producer-retailer association. I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the associations in Scotland in the preparation which has gone into the presentation of this Order. The original work on the Order goes back five or six years and I pay tribute, in particular, to the work of Mr. John Stevenson, who was chairman of the association and who, I know, has done a tremendous amount of work personally in consultation with the Department in
    1798
    preparing the Order. I hope that the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to join me in this tribute.
    I welcome the changes, from two points of view. First, from the point of view of public health, it is clearly desirable that high standards should be maintained; secondly, from the point of view of the producer, these provisions bring standards much more into line with modern methods of production. The Order recognises the demand in Scotland as elsewhere for fresh milk of high quality.
    On the last page of the explanatory part of the Order fresh milk is referred to as "raw milk". This is a particularly unfortunate term, because it puts into the mind of the consumer that there is something wrong with its being raw and that milk should be treated. As one who has always drunk "raw", or fresh, milk I think that there is no substitute for it. In areas where fresh milk is available consumers show a preference for it. Rather than use the term "raw milk" it would be preferable to use terms such as "fresh" or "untreated".
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) referred to health standards of dairy cows. It is unfortunate that there has not been included in the Order a provision that herds qualifying for designation as producing this standard of milk should be free from brucellosis. There is a genuine concern in the minds of local health authorities and the general public about this risk of brucellosis, particularly of its being transferred to human beings as undulant fever. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a Question of mine, said recently that there is not a high incidence of this in Scotland, but the fact that there is any incidence at all when it is something which can be avoided in this modern age is something about which we should be disappointed. If the Secretary of State is not ready at this stage to embark on a policy of eradication it might have been provided in the Order that herds should be vaccinated with S.19 vaccine. The vaccination scheme provided by the Department of Agriculture is optional and is not obligatory on producers of this grade of milk.
    Another desirable step for those producing this grade of milk would be

    1799
    provision for regular clinical examinations of herds by veterinary surgeons. We have an examination once a year in connection with the tuberculin test; but rather more regular supervision of herds would be a good thing. Standards of health among herds producing this grade of milk are high because the standard of management is usually high, but, all the same, it would put at rest a lot of the doubts in people's minds if they knew that regular veterinary examinations were taking place.
    I turn now to some of the detailed provisions in the Order. I welcome the provision for central bottling. I think that this may answer the question raised by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who, unfortunately, is no longer in his place. Producer-retailers have been pressing for the change for some time. Small producers may have had to install special bottling plant in their own premises, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on a small scale, it may not be economic. The new provision in the Order is a great step forward. Milk may now be bottled centrally and still qualify for the special designation.
    Why has it been thought necessary to retain the coliform test when there is a very low bacterial count? It is recognised among dairy farmers and, I think, among certain authorities in public health, the universities and agricultural colleges that, as the bacterial count comes down, there is a risk of the coliform bacteria increasing although, of course, there is no increase in the overall bacterial count. It is now known that the coliform bacteria are not harmful to public health in the way once thought. I should have thought it possible, where the bacterial count was low, to omit he coliform test altogether.
    I am somewhat disturbed about the provision governing the temperature at which the milk is to be delivered. The Order provides that the temperature must be maintained at less than 50 degs. F. in the retail containers. Is this practicable? The Scottish Association of Producer-Retailers conducted some experiments in September, 1963. A check was made of deliveries between 6.30 a.m. and 11 a.m. The milk was taken out of the cold store at a temperature of between
    1800
    40 and 42 degs. F., and it was returned to the dairies at temperatures varying between 48 and 56 degs. F. Forty samples were taken. It is true that only two samples were over 54 degs. and they were off vans which had quite a long mileage to cover, in particular a long return mileage.
    This temperature requirement will be difficult to comply with and difficult to enforce. It would have been better to provide for a temperature of 50 degs. F. at the last static storage point; in other words, taking it at the point at which the milk came out of cold store. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the expense of insulated vans would be prohibitive and their use would probably be impracticable where the milk was being delivered from door to door and the insulated container would be opened and closed many times.
    Now, a question about licences. Under the old licence system for special designations, there has been some confusion as to whether a producer who held a "certified" licence and lost it would automatically qualify for a "tuberculin tested" licence. Although the Milk Marketing Board thought that he should automatically qualify, there were many cases in which local authorities did not automatically grant "tuberculin tested" licences.
    The question I put to the hon. Lady is this. If a producer holds a "Premium" licence, will he automatically qualify for the "standard" licence as well? If a producer lost a "premium" licence and did not immediately qualify for the standard grade, things could be very awkward.
    I am also concerned about the procedure under which the new licences are to be issued. The already existing licences under the special designations Order are to expire on 31st December this year. I should have thought it would have meant a lot of work for local authorities to issue the new grades of licences on a single date. I suggest that it might be more practicable to phase the issue of the new licences between now and 31st December.
    Finally, I raise the question of prices. There is a lot of concern among producers in relation to the premium for milk of this quality. At the moment the Government are paying ¼d. a gallon for

    1801
    high quality milk. This ¼d. a gallon is passed on by the Milk Marketing Board to producer-retailers as an average sum in the calculation of the levy which producer-retailers pay to the Board. On average, the milk of producer-retailers is of higher quality than that of normal producers because the producer-retailer is far more in touch with the needs of the market and the needs of the consumer than other producers are. He is benefiting only to the extent of the average premium whereas his milk is of above-average quality. Would the hon. Lady comment on that?
    I hope that when the prices Order is issued for these grades of milk there will be sufficient differential between these grades and the ordinary grades. Prewar the differential was between 2s. and 3s. a gallon. Now it is about 1s. a gallon. It is very costly to produce milk of this quality in terms of equipment, standards of staff and standards of management. Therefore, I hope that a sufficient differential will be offered.
    While I welcome the Order, I think that the success of it and of these new grades will depend to no small measure on the kind of premium which is offered when the prices Order is issued.
    11.17 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): A great many detailed points have been raised in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for giving us an opportunity to clarify some of the points, and I am very glad indeed of the welcome which he has given to the Order, particularly since I know how much work he devoted to this subject in the days before October.
    I will try to deal with the points as they were raised. First, I take the point about names, because it is of some consequence. People attach a great deal of importance to the names of the foods and products which they use. The first, and main, point to be made is that the words "premium" and "standard" were chosen after a tremendous amount of discussion. I will indicate the channels of discussion by telling the House some of the names which were considered but not selected. For what was previously certified milk the following were considered: sub-certified, specially selected, super test, grade A,
    1802
    grade I, refrigerated attested, refrigerated certified, milk plus, quality certified and warranted. I could give a similar list for standard, including: untreated, unpasturised, milk, attested, premium, standard and grade B. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) would probably have liked us to choose "milk" because that would have immensely simplified our legislation.
    Mr. W. Baxter: "Milk" is quite a descriptive word for the fluid which comes from the cow.
    Mrs. Hart: I am sure that next time we are revising the regulations we shall think of this point. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal too much complication in our legislation. I could have wished that the Order was simpler.
    I turn to the basis of the Order and shall answer some of the specific points raised. The Order arises from the fact that bovine tuberculosis was eradicated from cattle. This was achieved after a long campaign in which farmers were at first encouraged to eliminate the disease voluntarily. We arrived at a position when the designation "tuberculin tested" ceased to have any significance. That is the background to the Order because it was necessary to reconsider the grading of milk from the point of view of hygiene and safety—in other words, from the point of view of health.
    I make it clear that the Order is designed for the ultimate protection of health and hygiene. It is not designed specifically for the milk producer. It tries to reconcile his interests with those of health and hygiene and does it very satisfactorily. It provides for two new grades of untreated milk, standard and premium, and continues the existing grades of treated milk, pasteurised and sterilised.
    Questions were asked about prices. I fear I shall have to disappoint hon. Members. I must not enter the subject of milk prices. If I did, I should be in danger of getting out of order, because the subject of prices will be covered by a later order amending the Milk (Great Britain) Order, 1962, which is yet to be laid. It will be before the House fairly soon and any debate on prices will have to be considered in that context. Hon. Members on both sides have had an

    1803
    opportunity today to consider prices and I assure them that they will not have long to wait before they know something about the prices that will govern milk under this Order.
    As is usual, the Order, when it was laid in February, had been drawn up after full consultations with all the interests concerned, but there were some difficulties. That is the answer to the question as to why there has been some time elapsed between the point at which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West left it and now. The proposals originally made were modified considerably because there were various representations and criticisms.
    We believe that the Order now meets the needs of the situation as it has presented itself and provides a workable
    system. We believe that it will safeguard the consumer while allowing the milk producers and the milk trade reasonable opportunity to make any adjustment they need to make to working conditions when the designations "certified" and "tuberculin tested" are withdrawn at the end of the year.
    I was asked about brucellosis. Both sides of the House are agreed that we must all work for complete eradication of brucellosis in cattle in Scotland. But we have found it impossible to make it a condition of premium grade in the Order that the milk should be free from brucellosis. We should like to do so in the interests of hygiene but we are advised that there is as yet no reliable test for freedom from the organisms of brucella. Clearly, until we have a reliable test we cannot impose conditions that imply that the milk could be so tested.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Could not the Government make it obligatory to vaccinate with S.19 vaccine for much the same end in the interim period until a satisfactory test is evolved?
    Mrs. Hart: It is not as simple as that. A great many efforts are going on in this direction. If it had been felt that the hon. Member's suggestion was practicable, it would have been done. I should be out of order, again, if I tried to discuss the question of how best we can deduce and eradicate brucellosis, but those consulted advised that it was
    1804
    impossible to provide a test because there was no reliable one, and a brucellosis general vaccination scheme is ultimately the only answer. What the hon. Gentleman suggests would not he practicable.
    I was also asked about Resazurin tests rather than a count of bacteria. This is of great importance. There were two points at issue concerning the bacterial tests, the first being whether the present bacterial count test itself should be replaced or modified by the Resazurin test. Hon. Members who are agriculturists are familiar with these words. I have no doubt that I shall be able to pronounce them by the end of the debate, but at the moment I am stumbling over them. This, of course, is a dye test which measures bacterial activity. The second issue was whether, if there were to be a bacterial count, it should continue to be accompanied by a specific test for the absence of coliform bacteria from a given quantity of bacteria. Coliform bacteria are not in themselves likely to be specially pathogenic, but the question was whether their presence might indicate bad hygiene on the farm.
    The original proposals for the dye test, which had already been adopted by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for the keeping quality payments scheme, as the hon. Gentleman will know, were thought to be simpler and just as reliable as a bacterial count which revealed a bacterial activity acceptable for standard milk. For the level required for premium milk, the bacterial count was thought to be a more reliable test, and the coliform test therefore is not thought to add anything to the indication obtained from a count.
    These original proposals were opposed by the local authority associations, the agricultural colleges and the Milk Marketing Board of the Aberdeen and District Area and by bacteriologists from a number of hospitals, universities and research institutes. It was argued that the modified Resazurin test had not been shown to be as good as a bacterial count and as coliform tests at reflecting conditions of milk production and the Resazurin test necessitated a complicated preliminary storage procedure which made it unacceptable for laboratory tests. The coliform test, it was argued, measured dairy hygiene by the only practical test for contamination from sources likely to

    1805
    contain human faeces and it was the test which 80 per cent. of the unsatisfactory milk failed and its significance was understood by the producers. With all these arguments, it was not felt that the proposals could be maintained against all the weight of this very expert opposition. That is the reason why this test was not included.
    The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked a question about cooling to 50 degrees. The answer is simply stated. It is that the producer-retailer associations are very satisfied with the new requirement, and there is no need to assume that it will involve any difficulty.
    The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) asked about the tribunals. The form laid down in the Order has been the basis of the tribunals for many years and there is no evidence that it has given rise to any unfairness; nor have we had any representations that it should be changed. The hon. Member may be theoretically right, but in practice it does not seem to have worried anybody.
    I was asked about publicity and how people would know that standard milk was as good as T.T. milk. This is probably something that we can leave to the distributive trade. In all other aspects of publicity of consumer products it is not the producer who makes clear to the consumer precisely what is contained in the product but the retailer and the distributive trade which we know to be only too anxious to sell this milk and which will make the efforts necessary to make clear to the housewife exactly what the facts are.
    I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West what records would be kept of long-keeping milk. I take his point about the need for this. But long-keeping milk, as I think he will agree, is still very much in the pioneering stage and it is very early for considering what may eventually be needed in this direction. However, I take the point and we will keep an eye on this.
    The only other question was what happens to standard milk between the coming into operation of the title and September, 1966. The answer is very simple. If anyone wants to cool milk before September, 1966, to 50°F., he can
    1806
    do so and does not have to do so before that date.
    If there is anything I have omitted, and I am sure that there is because I have not had time to go into the matters of great detail which have been raised, I will write to the hon. Members concerned.
    May I say finally how much I welcome the Order and the attitude of hon. Members opposite to it? I think that it will go a long way to meet a need in Scotland which we believe we are meeting in the best way possible.
    Mr. Stodart: With the leave of the House, may I thank the hon. Lady for her explanations and for dealing with Resazurins so successfully.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    ROADS, EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Richard Wood: The subject I wish to raise is one which will be familiar to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It concerns the question of roads in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Some of them are in my constituency. Others are in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and for Howden (Mr. Bryan). 1 believe that if I can curb my verbosity on this occasion either one or both of them will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport replies. I also understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is interested, particularly in the road which connects Hull with South Yorkshire and Lancashire.
    There are three points that I wish to raise. The first relates to the allocation of grants, the second to safety, and the third to the effect of railway closures on the roads in my constituency between Hull and Hornsea and Hull and Withernsea. I understand that the maintenance and minor improvement is arrived at by the Minister of Transport dividing the national grant between his divisional

    1807
    road engineers, and the divisional road engineers then allotting the available money to the counties and the county boroughs in their own divisions.
    It is the intention of the Ministry of Transport, I believe, to put this grant on the basis of a 10-year programme in order to bring existing roads up to a reasonably modern standard. Whether or not the annual average for the East Riding, which is just under £338,000 for the next 10 years, is adequate—the comparable figure for this year is £319,000—depends on the additional grants which are likely to be available for the major improvements.
    Therefore, I come to these major improvement grants. Of those at the bottom and the top of the scale there is little that I need say. As to the grants up to £25,000 I understand that it is the responsibility of the highways committee to choose the schemes to be carried out within the sums which have been made available, and that no specific Ministry approval is necessary. At the other end of the scale—schemes costing more than £500,000—at present the county has no such schemes in view. But when one looks at the middle range—first of all, schemes costing between £25,000 and £100,000, which need the approval of the divisional road engineer—only four of these schemes in the East Riding were given approval between 1960 and 1964. Of the schemes costing more than £100,000 which have been put forward by the East Riding, not one has so far been accepted for execution before 1969.
    I have no need to go into the details of the schemes because the right hon. Gentleman no doubt has them all, but it is clear that delay for all the schemes which are going to cost more than £100,000 is not only serious in itself, but it means that no consideration can be given to a number of other improvements which are further down in the queue, many of which are already urgent. If a start is not made very soon with the schemes to which the county council has given the highest priority, I think we shall not see other schemes which are clearly necessary completed in my lifetime.
    For instance, the county council has not included in its "top ten"—its 10 highest priorities—the whole stretch of
    1808
    a road in the north-eastern corner of the county, about which, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have already written to his right hon. Friend. This road is narrow, it winds, it is blind and it passes a very busy entrance to one of the Butlin camps. It carries very heavy traffic during the summer months and it has been the scene of a number of road accidents.
    The latest available accident figures show that in 1963, on 2,250 miles of roads in the East Riding, just under 3,000 accidents were reported, or an average of about 1·3 accidents per mile. In the general area of Filey and Bridlington, in the north-east of the county, there was about 1 accident per mile, but over the stretch of road which I have in mind, which runs from a place called the Dotterel Inn to the turning to Filey, the accident rate in 1963 was not 1 or 1·3, but 5·8 per mile.
    I am, naturally, aware of the strength of the case for giving higher priority to improvements to roads which carry heavy traffic throughout the year than to roads which are busy only during the summer months, but I hope that I have said enough to illustrate the danger—I speak literally about the danger—of pressing that argument too far and of ignoring the seasonally busy roads which happen to contain a high proportion of accident black spots.
    One further and most important consideration is the extra burden which is being thrown upon some of these roads by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), when Minister of Transport, to consent to certain railway closures. I supported those decisions taken by my right hon. Friend, both during my election campaign and since, because I was convinced that the railways were being speedily and increasingly deserted for the roads. But it was this very conviction that led me, in turn, to be quite certain that substantial road improvements were necessary, because parts of each of the roads between Hull and Hornsea, and also parts of the main link between Hull and Withernsea, were already wholly inadequate last year for the traffic which the railways were not carrying. Now, new demands are to be made upon these already inadequate roads by the conditions imposed when the lines were closed.

    1809
    Therefore, I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer three questions. First, will he consider with sympathy the immediate inclusion of improvements proposed by the East Riding County Council in the rolling programme, so that progress can be made with the most urgent of them? Secondly, will be pay particular attention to the frequency of accidents on particular roads, even if they occur mainly during three or four summer months, because it is just as uncomfortable or distressing to be killed or maimed in July as in January?
    Thirdly, will the hon. Gentleman agree that the hardship which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey denied would result from the railway closures in my constituency is, indeed, avoidable, but that it can in many cases be avoided only by substantial improvements to existing roads? If he agrees with this possibility of avoiding this hardship by substantial improvements to existing roads, will he, in his reply, undertake to do everything possible to see that the necessary funds are made available so that the county council can start to tackle this work, which has already become very urgent?
    11.40 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: I should just like to add two points to the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend and Parliamentary neighbour the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). The first one concerns the county town of Beverley, which is an ancient town with many historic buildings. A lot of the traffic which proceeds to the coast in my right hon. Friend's constituency passes through the town, and what is really most important is that a ring road or by-pass should be constructed round the town. I know that this is under consideration, and it may depend in some degree on the new trunk road from Hull to Beverley, but I hope that something will be done about it before the historic beauties of Beverley are destroyed by the ever-increasing traffic.
    The second point is the need for better east-west communications. Here again, I think the need is acknowledged by the Minister of Transport. The point I particularly want to make is that it is no good improving east-west communications
    1810
    unless consideration is given to the scheme for the Humber bridge. It would surely be crazy to build new roads if we were then to find that the new roads are in the wrong places when the Humber Bridge is built. These two schemes, better east-west communications and the Humber Bridge, are, I suggest, not alternatives to each other but are complementary.
    11.41 p.m.
    Mr. Paul Bryan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for allowing me two minutes of the time he has used so well. Of course, I very much support what he has said about East Riding roads, and I would use my two minutes just to ask two questions. They are questions about two chronically festering traffic sores in my constituency, Selby Bridge and the traffic jam on the Malton road.
    The Selby Bridge problem is something like 100 years old and the only thing I want to do now is to bring it up to date. The last report I have had on this subject was from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, and that said that the Department had received a report from the consulting engineers who were appointed to carry out a survey of the future trunk road requirements of the East and West Ridings between Hull and the Great North Road. That had been received some time before October. What I should now like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is whether that report has been considered and what conclusion has been come to about it, because it is on the conclusion which the Ministry comes to that the future of any Selby by-pass must depend.
    My second question, which is about the Malton by-pass, is slightly less old. I suppose that this problem is 25 years old, and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, know more about it even than I do. The reason why it is 25 years old is that each Minister has regarded it, in the words of the last Minister, as relatively unimportant in comparison with roads which take more commercial traffic. What I should just like to underline tonight is that whether or not it was relatively unimportant or comparatively unimportant in the past, that situation has changed, in that the type of traffic has changed.

    1811
    First of all, whereas in days gone by this was a holiday traffic jam which occurred at weekends, now in the summer we get traffic jams during every single day. There is far more traffic. What I am concerned about is that in addition to holiday traffic we now get quite a bit of commercial traffic, because both Scarborough and Whitby, being fairly busy little ports in their own right, are drawing and attracting commercial traffic, and, indeed, a lot of traffic goes along this road to Hull as well.
    Other elements come into this. For instance, there is the Kirby Misperton Zoo, which probably the Minister does not know about, but this, again, is drawing enormous crowds along this road and increasing the traffic. The closing of the Malton-Whitby railway line is another factor which draws just that much more traffic along the road. So we are getting a scene different from and an argument different from the scene and the argument of 25 years ago. It is a different argument now.
    The question about the Malton traffic jam is this. What is the earliest date when we may expect to see the completion of the present east arm by-pass scheme, and, secondly, how soon will we see the complete by-pass scheme included in the Government's programme?
    11.45 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I thank the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for his customary courtesy in giving me detailed notice of the points that he wanted to raise. I may not be able to cover all the points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but I assure them that any which I fail to cover will be dealt with in correspondence as soon as possible.
    First, I should like to deal with the question of the inclusion of East Riding schemes in the rolling programme of the Ministry of Transport. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, here we are dealing with two programmes. The first is a new one for maintenance and minor improvement of trunk and classified roads. We are now in the course of getting under way a 10-year programme for the allocation of money for this work, and what the right hon. Gentleman said about the
    1812
    handling of this programme and the money for it is quite correct.
    We felt in the Ministry of Transport that there was a need to supplement the work done by the divisional road engineers in allocating funds for this purpose by providing a national programme within which to work. So, in 1964, we got under way a 10-year programme. The East Riding was originally allocated £319,000 for the financial year 1964–65, but I am glad to say that in January of this year we found it possible to allocate an extra £6,000.
    In the 10-year programme a sum of £3,377,975 has been approved for the East Riding; that is an average of £337,798 per annum. The benefits of the new programme for the East Riding will be quite clear when I say that this is the highest annual figure for maintenance and minor improvements in any year recently, except for 1963–64.
    This is a developing programme of maintenance and minor improvements. I should make it clear that this whole programme is flexible and is designed to take account of how the major improvements programme may alter during its currency.
    We have in mind sympathetic consideration for major improvements and development in the East Riding. All schemes put forward by local authorities for inclusion in the road programme are, of course, given the fullest consideration, but the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will appreciate that the whole programme is based on a national assessment of priorities and upon the needs of national planning. Even with the rising road programme which we have inherited—the Government are at the moment committed to an expenditure of more than £1,000 million during the period 1965–70—we still cannot keep pace with the rising amount of traffic.
    First, we have to give attention to providing from our trunk road and motorway funds an adequate inter-urban network of through routes, and the problems of urban congestion need a very large slice of the classified road programme. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the work that has already been done to improve the trunk road A.63

    1813
    westwards from Hull. We are not excluding work on other roads in this part of the country. We can, for example, sometimes fit in a scheme for a road which is used seasonally rather than all round the year, as we are doing on the A.64 at Malton, with the development of the eastern arm of the by-pass. At the moment East Riding schemes cannot be given higher priority, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that we are doing the best we can for the county in relation to the national programme, to which we have to apply very strict criteria.
    I turn to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the Filey-Bridlington Road on which he has carried on considerable correspondence with my right hon. Friend. We agree that the road between Filey and Bridlington is narrow and winding and that the accident rate on it is bad. But the point is that proposals for improvements of this road must come from the Fast and North Riding authorities. Both these authorities, I understand, have schemes for providing virtually a new road, but these schemes are fairly low down on the councils' list of priorities. We have not had any proposals specifially for the improvement of particular parts of the road which are regarded as accident black spots. Indeed, we have no evidence that there are black spots on these roads.
    Naturally in assessing the priority of road schemes we take road safety in account to a very considerable extent, and schemes are programmed just as much on account of bad accident records as they are on account of an increasing volume of traffic. But the fact is that roads carrying heavy traffic throughout the year generally have higher accident rates than seasonally-trafficked roads, such as the Filey-Bridlington road. While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a fatality or injury is just as distressing in July as it is in January, surely even more distressing are the injuries and accidents which take place in both months. I must say emphatically that at the moment we are dependent upon the priorities which are put forward by the local highway authorities, who are responsible for this road in considering the proposals which we should approve.
    1814
    Thirdly, I turn to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the effect of rail closures. We realise that this is a difficult point. I do not wish to press this, but it may be that had a more enlightened policy been operating when these railway lines were being considered for closure, the right hon. Gentleman might not have had to raise the question of the effect of closures. But we inherited this situation, and we have no power to rescind the decisions which were taken.
    We have to consider what the consequences have been. I have to say that at present the county council has not brought forward any schemes for the improvement of roads as a consequence of the closures of the railways to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Of course there has been only a comparatively short experience, and we know that the local authority has taken the view that any improvements necessitated by a Government decision should warrant special financial help. At the moment we cannot agree to this. Road improvements benefit all road users and Government grant rates reflect the recognised division of expenditure between local authorities and the Government for the class of road concerned.
    It is, therefore, up to the local highway authority to bring forward any schemes it feels are needed, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should try to impress on the council the urgency of drawing our attention to any road improvements which are felt to be necessary as a result of the rail closures, to which the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) gave consent.
    I should make it clear that, according to our present information, the roads in this part of the East Riding are adequate on the present criteria on which we operate, but I enter this qualification. It is many years since a traffic census was taken—indeed. I believe over a decade—on these particular roads and we in the Ministry of Transport would certainly look favourably at any proposals which the county council might wish to make for a new traffic count in the area this summer, during the height of the tourist season
    We appreciate that this is an important point. The statistical data which we have is obsolescent, dating back many years, and I repeat that we should look

    1815
    favourably at a proposal by the local highway authority to take a traffic census on the roads to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention so that we would have a better factual picture of the position from which to judge the priority which should be accorded for improvements there.
    I will, finally, reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who is only too well aware that my right hon. Friend yesterday received a deputation about the question of the Humber Bridge. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to add anything to the communiqué which was issued on that occasion. We will give very serious consideration to the representations which were made by the Humber Bridge Board and will consult a number of local authorities; the County Councils of Lindsey, the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, and the Hull City Council as well as the Yorkshire and
    1816
    Humberside Regional Economic Planning Council.
    I realise that very important problems are raised, not only in connection with the crossing of the Humber, but about the whole road network in this part of the world. We are extremely anxious to arrive at a decision on these matters—which will be expensive schemes—as soon as possible. We will, therefore, seriously consider them, as well as the representations made by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who raised a matter related to this question about which we have received reports from consulting engineers, and as soon as possible—
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Drainage Rates, Burnham-on-Crouch
  Drainage Rates, Burnham-on-Crouch
  Horticultural Industry
  Horticultural Industry
  Broiler Factories and Battery Methods
  Broiler Factories and Battery Methods
  Livestock Officers
  Livestock Officers
  Agricultural Workers and Advisory Services
  Agricultural Workers and Advisory Services
  Agricultural Co-operatives (Loans)
  Agricultural Co-operatives (Loans)
  Incomes
  Incomes
  National Poultry Flock
  National Poultry Flock
  Exchequer Support Costs
  Exchequer Support Costs
  Salmonellosis
  Salmonellosis
  Intensive Production Buildings (Rating)
  Intensive Production Buildings (Rating)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Guide Dogs (Quarantine)
  Guide Dogs (Quarantine)
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Oyster Beds (Blackwater)
  Oyster Beds (Blackwater)
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING BOARD NUCLEAR POWER STATION BRADWELL
  EXTRACT FROM REPORT NO. 4 ON ENVIRONMENTAL MORNING—BRADWELL
  EXTRACT FROM REPORT NO. 4 ON ENVIRONMENTAL MORNING—BRADWELL
  Milk
  Milk
  Shellfish
  Shellfish
  Annual Review (Production Grant Orders)
  Annual Review (Production Grant Orders)
  Flour (Chemical Improvers)
  Flour (Chemical Improvers)
  Nitrofurazone
  Nitrofurazone
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Fertiliser Subsidy
SCOTLAND
  Elderly Persons (Laundry Services)
  Elderly Persons (Laundry Services)
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
  State Management Hotels (Gretna and Cromarty)
  State Management Hotels (Gretna and Cromarty)
ROADS
  Scotland Road, Liverpool (Accidents)
  Scotland Road, Liverpool (Accidents)
  South Orbital Road (God stone-Reigate)
  South Orbital Road (God stone-Reigate)
  Newcastle—Berwick Line
  Newcastle—Berwick Line
SHIPPING
  National Ports Council (Hull)
  National Ports Council (Hull)
  Hull Fish Dock
  Hull Fish Dock
RAILWAYS
  Liner Trains
  Liner Trains
  Crewe-Shrewsbury Services
  Crewe-Shrewsbury Services
TRANSPORT
  Scottish Transport Problems (Report)
  Scottish Transport Problems (Report)
  Driving Tests (Faversham)
  Driving Tests (Faversham)
  London Transport (Commonwealth Immigrants)
  London Transport (Commonwealth Immigrants)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  B.O.A.C. (Finance)
  B.O.A.C. (Finance)
  Airline Earnings
  Airline Earnings
  Flying Clubs
  Flying Clubs
BOARD OF TRADE
  Northern Ireland Cattle Exports (Irish Republic)
  Northern Ireland Cattle Exports (Irish Republic)
  Methane Gas
  Methane Gas
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Economic Planning Councils
  Economic Planning Councils
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE REGION
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE REGION
  EAST MIDLANDS REGION
  EAST MIDLANDS REGION
BRITISH HONDURAS
  New Capital
  New Capital
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Cyprus (Mediator's Report)
  Cyprus (Mediator's Report)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Sentenced Soldiers (Imprisonment and Detention)
  Sentenced Soldiers (Imprisonment and Detention)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Merton
  Merton
  Indian Teachers
  Indian Teachers
  Mental Illness (Research)
  Mental Illness (Research)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rates (Payment)
  Rates (Payment)
  Space Heating Aids (Sulphur Content)
  Space Heating Aids (Sulphur Content)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Catering)
  Prisoners (Catering)
  Food Standards
  Food Standards
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Fuel Oil Tax
  Fuel Oil Tax
  Foreign Currency
  Foreign Currency
  Ice-Cream (Tax)
  Ice-Cream (Tax)
HOUSING
  National Housebuilders Registration Council
  National Housebuilders Registration Council
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Institute of Agricultural Engineering (Liaison Unit)
  Institute of Agricultural Engineering (Liaison Unit)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Colour Television
  Colour Television
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Graduated Pension Scheme
POST OFFICE
  Postal Charges (Agricultural Industry)
  Postal Charges (Agricultural Industry)
  Regional Stamps
  Regional Stamps
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Nuclear Power Programme
  Nuclear Power Programme
  Methane Gas
  Methane Gas
WALES
  Housing
  Housing

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester
The Lord MacDermott—Took the Oath.

WATER SUPPLIES
2.36 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they anticipate that, assuming an average rainfall in England during the next six months, there will be any serious shortage of water supplies; and, if so, which areas of the country are likely to be affected.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, the present situation is exceptional. The three years ending January, 1965, were the driest 36 consecutive months in this century over England and Wales as a whole. February, 1965, was particularly dry. Average rainfall in the next six months should maintain supplies in reservoirs, but in areas dependent on underground sources, where rainwater may take up to three or four months to percolate, abnormal rainfall will be needed to cancel the risk of shortages later.
It is not possible to say in which areas shortage may occur. This depends not only on the total quantity of rainfall. It also depends very much on the "pattern" of rainfall: that is to say, whether a little rain falls each day—in which case much of it evaporates or a lot of rain falls on a number of days—in which case much of it percolates into the ground; or the rainfall of several weeks falls in one day—in which case much of it runs off the surface into streams and rivers.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his full Answer.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the situation is already pretty serious in certain parts of the country? Can he give an assurance that every possible step is being taken to avoid rationing in the later months of this summer?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not know how much rain is going to fall in the later months of the summer. All I can say is that this situation has unfortunately happened before. I looked up what happened in the six months ending on November 10, 1959 (when the present Government definitely were not responsible for the rainfall), and I think that about 52 drought orders were made in England and Wales. This was done under the Water Act, 1958, which had recently been passed for this very purpose. I cannot find that any further enactments directed to this particular matter have been passed since then, and I doubt whether any kind of legislation can be certain to cope always with the vagaries of the British climate.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood me if he thought I was asking for further legislation on this subject. The legislation passed by the late Government is ample to deal with the situation. What I was asking the noble Lord for was an assurance that steps would be taken well in advance to try to bring into use other supplies—because there are in many instances other supplies which could be brought in. They may be of a similar character, but they would be a help, not only now but in the future. There is very serious concern about this matter in many parts of the country, and the noble Lord is not dealing with the matter by referring to what has happened in the past, in 1959.
LORD MITCHISON: But, my Lords, the point is this. These orders are made on the application of statutory water undertakings, and have to be so made. I have not the least doubt that now, as in 1959 when previously we had a very dry summer, the applications will be met. I am relieved to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that the legislation passed for the subject is appropriate and sufficient. I was not quite certain about

1007
it, and it is nice to know. I can assure him that it is being operated, and that the broad question of water resources, which was dealt with, he will remember, by the Water Resources Act, 1963, is of course under active consideration, and has been for some time.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I repeat again, if I may, that I was not on the question of legislation; nor was I on the question of drought orders. I was asking the noble Lord to give an assurance that his Ministry would take every step possible to encourage the authorities responsible to bring into use in plenty of time such other sources as may be available. As the noble Lord is, I am sure, aware, where water boards are created in various parts they often cease to use certain sources of supply, which might be brought back into use at the present time. That is what I was asking the noble Lord about—whether he would give that assurance.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I do not think that that is necessary. When there is need for a drought order undertakers ask for it. They are the first people to ask. There was no difficulty in getting requests for orders on the last occasion; nor do I expect any such difficulty now. However, I can give the noble and learned Viscount the assurance—and I think it is a repetition of what I said before that the whole matter of water resources is under active consideration now. I do not quite know what he is suggesting should be done. There are two Ministries concerned, I may add: the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is not the answer that the Minister is suggesting, with some hesitation perhaps, that the Government inherited the weather from the late Administration?
LORD MITCHISON: May I thank the noble Earl, and tell him that it is not the first time I have noticed his very deep interest in water supplies in this country?
LORD BRECON: Would the noble Lord tell us whether the Government have in mind any plans to prevent the wastage of water, and whether we, as
1008
householders, who are charged for water on our rateable value, cannot have a meter? Because it would be much cheaper if we were charged by a meter than on the rateable value, as happens at present.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think I must ask for notice of questions about meters. I hope that I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord cannot on this occasion put the blame for the whole situation on thirteen years of "Tory misrule"?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I hinted that I was not quite sure whether there had been sufficient legislation, but I was reassured on that point by the noble and learned Viscount, who told me that it was all right.
A NOBLE LORD: It generally is.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lindgren will be making a statement on railway closures and manufacturing powers.

AGRICULTURE
2.43 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALDrose to draw attention to the present conditions in Agriculture; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of agriculture, as your Lordships know, is being debated simultaneously here and in another place, although there on a more specific and censorious Motion. Your Lordships normally prefer a wider Motion providing a debate to which a varied wealth of experience can make its varied contributions. Nor do your Lordships normally need formal guidance as to when, or where, or whether to be censorious. Certainly, none of my noble friends has asked me for such guidance to-day.
For all the permitted breadth of this debate, I have no doubt that very many noble Lords will be applying themselves to the recent Annual Price Review, but

1009
I think it proper for me to address myself mainly to this topical matter. The only explanation I can find for this Review is that the Government have tried to typify the popular, but, as to-day, the not always accurate, idea of English weather—grey, damp and dispiriting. That is not to say that when it rains it always rains pennies from Heaven—not in a Socialist Britain, at least not on the increasingly productive and superbly tilled acres of British agriculture.
It has been said with some authority that the present Government's determinations, just published, completely fail to recognise the needs of the agricultural industry in relation to the needs of the nation. Together with that stricture, the National Farmers' Union has sternly drawn attention to the luscious and pontifical pronouncements uttered by present Ministers when still in relatively harmless Opposition. On April 14 last, in another place, the present Prime Minister declared:
"What is required …is a policy from the Government of the day to expand those industries which can make a big impact on exports … and also to expand industries no less important which can save imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 693, col. 287, April 14, 1964.]
But, apparently, what is required of the Government of the day less than a year later—and a Government headed by the orator himself—is a Price Review which causes the normally phlegmatic farmers of this country to thrust unwilling chickens at the chicken-scorning Minister and to threaten to block the roads of this country with their tractors. I gather that they achieved a blockage of traffic at Paddington this very morning.
On September 30 last, from a platform which I had the pleasure of sharing with him, the present Minister of Agriculture said that the Tories have never produced a Minister of Agriculture comparable to Tom Williams. He has since made it quite certain that the Tories will never produce a Minister of Agriculture remotely resembling Mr. Thomas Frederick Peart—that would indeed be a curious target to set ourselves. He added, on the same occasion:
"Labour has never let down agriculture. We will give the industry a square deal."
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): Hear, hear!
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, says "Hear, hear!" But what we have before us to-day is the most cock-eyed conception of a square deal ever produced by the mind of man. Only in its most abstract art form could the noble Lord claim that his right honourable friend had drawn a square on this occasion.
I am not setting out to-day to cover the whole field of Government failure and imposture. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I had an early exchange, fourteen days ago, on the Statement itself. It certainly seems to me that what was touched on then by the other noble Lords and myself contains most of the material of the Government's demonstrable failure set in the vacuum of things neglected.
Let me, in deference to the Government's own propaganda, examine first the main plank of the current agricultural support as hopefully advertised in this Review. The Minister repeated tirelessly, and at times petulantly, that the dairy farmers were being given £11 million extra by his generous hand. The total award is £10 million, which means that more has been taken away from the industry as a whole than has been given to the dairy farmers. I do not think the noble Lord can be under any illusion that the dairy farmers consider themselves either fortunate or favoured by this treatment. They do not. It is noticeable that the rest of the industry, most of whom have in one way or another been partially deprived of support, do not consider that the dairy farmer has been especially cosseted in this Review. The noble Lord will argue, as he is entitled to do, that the extra penny a gallon covers the increased production cost. It may do so. He and his colleagues have the figures, and we shall be grateful to be told them.
The theme which was plugged by Mr. Wilson most monotonously before the Election was "import substitution". Unlike some of his themes, he continued to promote it when in office. Let me take only one instance. In Swansea, in January, he said this:
"I would particularly stress the need to develop import-saving industries. This should be tackled with at least the same energy as the export drive."

1011
Where, and how, has this energy been applied to this Review? Yet this is the obvious and undeniable long-term means of achieving import substitution. The remarks I have just quoted might be taken to vindicate the 15 per cent. surcharge. But this was a short-term and disruptive action, which the Government must have regretted since. If they talk in terms of the long term, let them take that road, and be seen to take it. They have gone down a very different track in this Review.
When the noble Lord says, as I assume he will say, that the penny a gallon covers the increased production costs, my answer is that this is slide-rule stuff. In the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, read out last week, there appeared certain words which I picked upon at the time:
"In view of the importance of the dairy herd, not only for milk but also for beef. …"
We are told—and I have no reason to doubt it—that many milk producers were waiting for this Price Review to govern their decision whether to stay in or get out. Does the noble Lord have the impression to-day that he has persuaded them to stay in? This is a loaded question, loaded in his favour, if he can bring himself to answer, Yes. If not, if a great number will be going out of milk after this Review, does he think that it matters? Does he think that it may even be a good thing?
In the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Eccles, the noble Lord appeared very sanguine on this point, basing his assurance on the claim that the decline in milk production had stopped. This in itself seemed to some of us a pretty unsteady peg on which to hang his confidence that this Review would not start the decline off again. But may I encourage him to make the best of what case he has by giving some figures? These figures would naturally make clear what sort of period they have been taking. Since when has the decline been halted? Would he also agree that once a farmer has gone out of milk he is very unlikely to return to the heavy work of a seven-day week? It is the clear opinion of most agriculturists that the Government are, at best—and I think that not many would con-
1012
cede them even this—cutting it pretty fine. It would be all too easy to pass the point of no return in milk production—or, should I say, milk reduction?
Does the noble Lord take at all seriously the belief that the Review will affect, is bound to affect, the supply of dairy calves for the beef industry? If he is as confident of the virtues of the Review, as he himself pronounced the other day, this is the sort of question that should positively delight him. Milk is the psychological and economic hinge of the whole fanning industry in this country, and since, for that reason, many other noble Lords will be referring to it, I do not intend to pursue this particular theme.
The Minister will, I assume, wish to deal also with cereals in his winding-up speech and I use the word "wish" in its more euphemistic and Parliamentary sense. He will not, I think, claim, as he stated in the closing words of his Statement, that he is "giving the industry an opportunity to improve its income" by the expedient of cutting the wheat and barley guarantees by 1s. 1d. and 1s. 4d. respectively. An angry but efficient farmer from Hampshire, who takes the lamentable and mistaken view that all politicians are as bad as one another, attacked me last week—though without, I am happy to say, any physical violence. He recited to me, in a kind of ferocious chant: "1s. 4d. cut in barley—£2,000 a year loss; increased fuel tax: 15 per cent. surcharge on essential imports—another £1,800: making £3,800 to find, in all, in one farming year." Where was the money to come from, he demanded to know. If the noble Lord can tell me that to-day, I will pass it on to the complainant, acknowledging the source of wisdom, with my normal open-handedness in these matters. This farmer is a relatively big man—big because he has grown by his own efficiency and confidence in the past several years. But what of the smaller men (supposing, as I should myself expect, they survive), all of whom are affected in direct ratio, but can hardly have the same resilience or resources to call upon? It is all very well for the Government to encourage small farmers by enlarging the scheme which they inherited from us, but what is the point of this encouragement if they kick

1013
the poor chap in his corduroy breeks when he bends over to dig?
When I quizzed the noble Lord upon the cereal cuts, he said that the action was forced upon his Government by the Minimum Imports Agreement concluded by their predecessors. He did not, in fact, use the word "forced", and if I am distorting his meaning, he will doubtless correct me. If not, then we ought to examine the words as I understood them. They refer, I think, to the opening sentence of paragraph 11 of the four letters published in Command Paper 2339, under the title of Exchange of Letters and Notes. Because this cut is such an important one (in fact, it is in one case, the maximum permitted, and in the other very nearly the maximum under the Act of 1957) I feel that it is worth scrutinising the precise words of this undertaking, to examine exactly what was, and remains, the force and scope and application of this undertaking, an undertaking which was approved, as I recall, by the Opposition of those days.
Paragraph 11 (I am quoting from one of the four letters) reads:
"If it is found as a result of a review of the minimum import price arrangements under paragraph 9 that they have resulted in an appreciable distortion of the pattern of trade in the products which this Letter covers between co-operating Governments supplying the United Kingdom and in consequence have damaged or threatened to damage the trade interests of the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Kingdom shall take effective corrective action in consultation with the Government of Canada and other cooperating Governments and in accordance with the procedures outlined in paragraph 7 to remedy the situation."
The paragraph ends by stating that in particular circumstances
"… the United Kingdom shall take effective corrective action at the earliest practicable time to remedy the situation."
The reference to paragraph 7 concerns the actual form which consultation shall take. Now, consultations between the British Government and those of Commonwealth and foreign countries are a delicate matter. I appreciate that the noble Lord may not wish to divulge or describe the detailed course of such consultations. But he can, I think, tell me whether any consultations did take place, and in what form.
I am not intending to take unfair advantage of him when I say that the
1014
impression given by his reply the other day is that other Governments were so insistent upon this maximum cut, imposed upon the British farmer, and deployed their arguments so convincingly, that Her Majesty's Government had no other recourse than to submit to their demands. I hope that he will find it possible to forgive me if I place a somewhat different, a significantly different, construction upon it; that is, that Her Majesty's Government lost so many friends at one blow on October 26, with the surcharge of 15 per cent., that they now need friends with a desperation that no British Government has ever felt before. They are so bent on winning back those departed, those offended friends, that someone has to pay a heavy price for winning some of them back—and the British farmer has been detailed to foot this bill.
These very startling cuts, only partly compensated by an increase in the standard quantities, reminded me of an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, during my speech at the other Dispatch Box last year. It makes interesting but somewhat doleful reading. The noble Lord asked me whether he could take it as absolutely definite that an increased consumption of cereals in this country would be shared in some proportion between the home producer and the importer. I replied, with great certainty, "Yes". The noble Lord then wished me to specify what the proportion would be, and this I could not do, although in anticipation of continued and stimulating Tory Government, I myself felt pretty optimistic. I think that if I had forecast the disappointing ratio as between the levels of deficiency payments and standard quantities, as published in this White Paper, the noble Lord would have assailed me with wholesome glee.
I ask the noble Lord opposite to-day: is this really the best the Government can do for the British cereal farmer? One of the most harmful reputations a Government can acquire is the reputation of being a bad bargainer on behalf of their countrymen. The Government will find it very hard, I think, to free themselves convincingly from that reputation. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Champion, can persuade your Lordships this afternoon that his colleagues have not been

1015
out-negotiated on this occasion, he will be doing them a signal service—and performing something of a debating miracle.
My Lords, in case I should be taken as deliberately selecting the weakest points of the Government's case—taking advantage, that is, of their generosity in providing such points I should in fairness turn to those awards that they are most openly pleased with: hill-farming and beef. The hill farmers have been favoured in two ways. First, the hill cow subsidy has been increased from £12 to £13 per eligible hill cow, and the stocking rate has been raised. Secondly, the hill sheep subsidy has been brought into the Review at a flat rate of 18s. per ewe for the standard rate flocks and 9s. for reduced rate flocks. I have great respect for the hill farmers. I was Chairman of the Advisory Committee in my time, and it was one of the most absorbing responsibilities given to me. I was able to look at hill farms in several parts of the country, including Yorkshire, and even in Scotland, though heavily disguised and under an assumed name. The full importance of hill sheep to the industry as a whole is not simple to understand, but it is certainly valid and an essential component of our fatstock industry.
My noble friend Lord Balerno is learned in matters of genetics and knows what is required to maintain the strain of lowland sheep, which cannot be done without regular reinforcement from the hills, and we cannot do without the hill farmers, who live more remote and less comfortable lives than most others. I hope they will get what they need, and I am certainly not going to carp or question before the results of those changes are shown. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood will be speaking later with far greater knowledge than is possible to a lowland farmer like myself, and especially a farmer in a coal-mining area, who rashly tried keeping sheep for one ruinous year, blinding himself to the fact that nearly every miner keeps a dog and that dogs run a great deal faster than sheep. I will not carp, but I will point out that what the hill farmer is interested in is not simply and solely raising his sheep, but selling his sheep. If the Government had been able to be more helpful to the fattener down below, the hill farmer's
1016
market would have been more promising; therefore benefit given may prove a limited benefit. I shall listen with interest to any comment the noble Lord has upon this, and I am sure he will have a thoughtful answer ready.
But before leaving this subject, I must say one word in defence of the Minister himself, in respect of one specific canard, in case his noble friend has to omit it from among all the things he has to defend. On January 22 I read on the second page of the New Statesman that Mr. Peart has become "the hill farmers' darling". I think it is absolutely wicked to suggest—and I protest at the suggestion—that the present Minister should seek the affection of one particular section of the industry among all others. I think it is monstrous, and I am positive that if he wishes to be loved by any farmers, he wants to be loved by them all. He has not, so far, to my observation, been entirely successful. I have heard talk of "friendly Fred Peart" of "fumbling Fred Peart", and other affable alliterations, but never, so far, any reference to "darling Fred Peart".
To turn to the other bid for love and understanding, it is clear that the Minister intended to encourage the beef producers. Here, again, we shall have to watch for results. It looks as if the authors of this particular part of the Review may have been playing hopefully with mirrors and ended up by confusing each other. It is, at the moment, not easy to see how the increase of 4s. per cwt. can help very much so long as the present high prices hold. The noble Lord has probably been shown the F.M.C. Midland Area Circular, which says:
"If market prices were to remain unchanged during the week commencing 29th March, the effect of the Price Review would be to reduce the overall return to producers by 3s. 8d. per cwt. or ¾d. per lb. It is therefore expected that cattle which this week were group one will be reduced by 1d. per 1b. or 5s. per cwt. next week, and that our price list will, with regret, have to reflect this alteration."
Aware that this upsetting opinion has been expressed, the noble Lord will doubtless have a reassuring answer ready, and we shall be interested to hear it. By the look of it, at present nothing less than a real decision, lucidly and persuasively set out, on long-term measures, could have given the confidence which Labour spokesmen promised so frequently before the Election.

1017
There are, in fact, four allusions—no more than allusions, piously worded—to long-term policy on which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, must hang his whole case to-day. They occupy altogether about five full lines of the 48 pages of the White Paper. They are subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 3. The first two are the maintenance and stability of the industry and the further progressive introduction of new technological improvements; better farm management; and improved marketing. This is comprehensible, because it simply and wisely continues Conservative policy, and I hope will continue the success of that policy. Subsection (c) is the
"encouragement to farmers generally to obtain the benefits of scale in production and marketing."
The noble Lord can help us a great deal by telling us what this means. Once he has done so, we may discover more cheer in subsection (d), the consequential further release of resources for use elsewhere in the nation's economy. This is compendious, cloudy and utterly meaningless as it stands. Here, again, the noble Lord can help us. Does this refer to the release of land or labour or machinery, two of these, or all three; and how is he going to set about it; and, again, when?
My Lords, whatever the intentions of the Government were, this has been, demonstrably, a depressing Review. The Government may exhibit righteous astonishment, but they cannot doubt that farmers are depressed. Still, nothing can ever weaken my personal fondness for the noble Lord opposite, and I put no blame upon him.
Some weeks ago, when debating an entirely different subject, I invited the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to stay with me in Yorkshire, on a Ministerial occasion. His noble Leader asked me, most gratifyingly, if that invitation extended to the whole of his Front Bench. The somewhat cautious nature of my reply on that occasion was due to awareness that the visit would be after the Budget—and after Ministers had begun to receive their increased emoluments. Dazzled by my mental picture of the new Ministerial standard of living, and abashed by the austerity of what, by that time, I might be able to offer them, I was understandably reluctant to ask dis-
1018
tinguished Ministers to "rough" it in my own establishment. At the same time, so went my hasty calculations, since virtually all my living now comes from farming, I thought a favourable Price Review might just enable me to entertain them. In the circumstances we are now discussing I must ask the noble Lords on the Bench opposite, entirely in their own interests, to limit their numbers for May 19. However, in spite of all things visible and invisible—made visible two weeks ago and still invisible until next week (saving yet another leak before then, of course)—the noble Lord and his Leader will be very welcome, even if I have to share my last crust with them. But perhaps there is yet hope for something better. The luncheon at Downing Street to-night—
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM):Luncheon—to-night?
LORD ST. OSWALD:The dinner at Downing Street to-night. What will come of that? A transformation—who knows? The Prime Minister is never happier than when playing the role of a modern Machiavelli, reared on Worcester sauce. What would be more pleasingly Machiavellian than instructing dependable Mr. Pearl to cast the farmers into the present dungeon, and then—"Open Sesame!"—into No. 10; and the treasure chests of the neighbouring Treasury are flung open. All is forgiven, and only a few of us choke from the smoke of that inescapable pipe. All within a fortnight! How is that for "Stop-Go"—dynamic Stop-Go? Fanciful, I suppose, but not inconceivable, judged on current behaviour.
There would be a casualty, of course. But you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs; and this particular egg is visibly cracked already. The Minister denied on Sunday, on Tyne-Tees Television, that this most unpopular Review had been forced upon him by his colleagues, as many have charitably assumed. He said it was his, and his alone. This is loyalty carried to commendable and even heroic lengths. Those of us who have an affection for him—and we are many—would prefer to believe otherwise. In fact, it looks as if the do-it-yourself tar and feather kit, which

1019
seems to be part of the standard equipment of every Socialist Minister, has been applied here by cold-eyed colleagues with an almost Ku Klux Klan gusto to this entirely amiable man. That is the picture that many people have in their minds. I do not think that ever before have the N.F.U. found it necessary to take whole pages at £5,000 each in national newspapers to put forward their protest.
LORD STONHAM: They have not been well off enough to do it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This was up to this Price Review. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, will do his best at the end of the day, and his best is always impressive. But what has he to fight with? To defend this Review the noble Lord has already trotted out a number of glossy-coated but seriously spavined arguments, which he would far better have left in the stable. He said that the first explanation of the flourishing agriculture which the present Government inherited was an exceptionally good year for farming weather in 1964. No doubt he will do his best to blame bad weather for the looming misfortunes of the industry when the time comes. But, in any case, the line of argument seems to imply that farmers cannot expect such exceptional aid from nature in the coming season. Instead of Tory weather, we shall have Socialist weather. In this expectation, the farmers might have looked for a more helpful, not a less helpful, Review. But in fact the noble Lord regards it, as I heard his remarks, as an excuse for curtailing support.
He said there was also a good Price Review in 1964. "Good" was the noble Lord's adjective, which he attributed to an Election year. He made great play, as did his right honourable friend in another place, with that attribution. And yet I recall that the then Opposition were very coy in admitting that they, last March, would have presented a less favourable Review—almost as coy as was the noble Lord more recently in admitting, as we now know, that this year's Review was in fact imposed. My right honourable friend Mr. Christopher Soames challenged the present Minister on that very charge after last year's Statement. He said:
1020
"If, from the inference he has drawn, the honourable Gentleman thinks that the Government have been over generous in any particular, let him tell the House."
Mr. Peart on that occasion remained curiously silent. Perhaps the noble Lord will be more forthcoming to-day in stating that in 1964 the Labour Party favoured giving the same short shrift, the same parsimonious treatment, to agriculture which they have imposed on attaining office.
But this resentment of what the noble Lord, himself classifies as a "good" Review last year, carries an even more significant and disturbing implication. What the noble Lord appears to be saying, at the top of column 375 of Hansard of March 17, is that the farmers, having enjoyed thirteen years of wise, understanding, and helpful Tory Administration, are now in for a spell of purblind and punishing Socialist policy. That is the way I read his observations, and I assume that is the explanation most farmers will find for the nature of this year's Review. The same impression was being given, with far more harshness, at the other end of the building by a Government supporter who complained that another £11 million was being poured down the drain for this industry. These are the kind of indications the farmers are bound to note, with all their foreboding. How startlingly they contrast with the gay, exotic pledges given before the Election by Labour spokesmen! We had Mr. Richard Crossman telling the farmers in advance:
"Produce all you can. We will get rid of it because the world needs it."
This is translated into maximum cuts in the wheat and barley guarantees, with other cuts in lime and fertiliser subsidies. We had Mr. George Brown trumpeting his fourteen points at Swaffham, with the assurance that the first part of Labour's food policy would be on the world stage, with the presentation to the United Nations of new proposals aimed at channelling food surpluses to starving countries. In fact, the first part of that food policy has been to discourage our own producers, and perhaps the noble Lord will tell us when the United Nations is likely to have this plan presented to it.
We had Mr. Peart a year ago promising "an improved price policy affecting

1021
milk", and foretelling an expansion of the dairy industry. Is this the improved policy? Is this the impulse to expand? We had fine fighting talk about "low interest credit for farmers." What has happened to that? We questioned the noble Lord two weeks ago about the longterm policy for beef. He said that that, of course, was a matter for further consideration. I quote Mr. Peart from the Farming Express on May 21 last year:
"One of my first jobs, if I were Minister of Agriculture, would be to thrash out a five-year or more policy for agriculture. You can't afford to go along from one expedient to another."
There has been plenty of thrashing around by the Labour Government in the past five months, but dynamism does not seem to extend to agriculture.
I am not one to rub salt into the self-inflicted wounds of anyone, especially the noble Lord opposite. But when I referred the other day to the contrast between promise and performance, he replied beamingly with that old bromide about "the mess they had not expected to find." I must say to the noble Lord, in the greatest friendliness—indeed, in recognition of his personal qualities—that this retort was totally unworthy of him. This apologia sounds emptier every time it is used. Nobody has kept count of the number of times it has been used, and it sounded empty enough at the beginning. It looks suspiciously as if the Labour Party had this protective smoke condensed and bottled in the vaults of Transport House for cover against the indignation which a potential Labour Government would inevitably call down upon itself.
This was foreseen from within the Labour Party over many years. Sir Stafford Cripps said:
"I cannot imagine the Labour Party coming into power without a first-rate financial crisis."
That was in 1934, but we all know that the Labour Party has not changed in thirty years. Mr. John Strachey said, only ten years ago, that if a Labour Government even attempted to implement its policy the national reserves of gold, dollars and foreign exchange would pour out of the country in a torrent. Prophetic words, my Lords—a pity that not enough people heeded them in 1964. But do not pin it on a Tory Government, particularly not in agriculture. The more
1022
we look at the policy of this Government, and compare it with our policy, the more clearly we see the difference between our two approaches. The Labour Party loudly describes its championship, loudly proclaims itself the farmer's best friend—and then defaults, as it has in this Review. We make no vaunting or ingratiating claims. We quietly, effectively, consistently prove our esteem for the industry in the administration we offer, and take quiet joy from its health and achievements. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for bringing this debate before us to-day? I enjoyed his attacking speech. But I am not sure that he was not attacking much the same sort of thing as I suspect a Tory Minister of Agriculture might well have to be doing too. Obviously, the terms of reference of this debate are very wide and, equally obviously, I am going to address myself in the same way as the noble Lord has, to the White Paper and the Price Review. I want to follow him, first of all, on the subject of the question of home production and food imports. I always look at these annual Price Reviews every year in terms of the balance of home production and food imports, because it seems to me that this is the central problem of our agriculture. I look at it from the point of view of what effects on the balance between home production and imports the Price Review is going to have and whether those effects are going to be good ones. If the balance between home production and food imports that we have at the moment is right—I repeat, if it is right—then perhaps the Price Review is not unreasonable; but I do not believe that this balance is right. In fact, I am more and more convinced that it is wrong; and I thought the Government thought it was wrong, too.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, pointed out the sort of things with regard to agricultural expansion that Ministers of the present Government have been saying in the last year, stressing how very important it is to equal the efforts towards import saving to those towards exports. The Prime Minister has said this very strongly; so have Mr. George Brown and the present Minister for Agriculture; and I thought that what this meant was that the new Govern-

1023
ment were going to re-examine what seems to me to be the old 19th century concept that Great Britain was overwhelmingly an exporter of industrial goods and overwhelmingly an importer of food. Is this any longer true? I do not believe it is. Once again we have a serious balance of payments crisis. It is endemic. Obviously we must export industrial goods, but similarly, and at the same time, we must save more than we are doing on imports. It is the balance between these two things which is wrong, and it is the sort of balance that can in some measure be put right by a changed outlook on the whole agricultural policy. The endemic balance of payments difficulties seem to me to be a proof of this.
May I remind your Lordships that imports of food from temperate climates amount to £1,000 million a year? This is equivalent to one-quarter of all our exports; and if import saving means anything at all, surely we ought to be making great efforts to try to reduce this £1,000 million. I should have thought that if we took quite a small figure like 5 per cent. per annum, we would reduce this £1,000 million by a third in the course of five years.
Does the Price Review even point in this direction? I certainly do not think it does. The Price Review, it seems to me, accepts the status quo; accepts the fact that the balance between home production and food imports is right. It is the same old view that British agriculture should be small. In a world with population explosion on top of us, has this any longer the same significance that it had for 19th century Britain? Does the view that British agricultural expansion means a diversion of scarce resources into marginal efforts really any longer apply? I do not think it does.
It seems to me that, in so far as it is accepting this old view, the Price Review is taking a wrong view of the real cost to the Exchequer. The real cost to the Exchequer is not just a straight subsidy to farmers. Again, may I remind your Lordships that there is a very large element of consumer subsidy in the whole complex of our agricultural subsidies. May I remind your Lordships also that a great part of this subsidy is a subsidy to industrialists in the form
1024
of cheap food, and that part of it is maintaining our currency at 2·80 dollars to the pound. We can do this only by subsidising the food industry in the way we do. Similarly, there is an indirect subsidy to invisible exports, such as shipping and insurance. In fact, one cannot help feeling that the country has had very good value out of the subsidies, which amount really, in terms of support, to very little more than most industrialists have had in the way of tariffs.
It is rather interesting that just at this very moment when we have had a new Price Review the Russians have announced a great new look in agriculture. What this really means, so far as Russia is concerned, is that they are recognising, probably for the first time, the tremendous burden that their agricultural industry has borne in enabling them to make the colossal industrial advance which they have made in the last fifty years. A great deal of that tremendous industrial advance has been on the back of the Russian agricultural community. The Russians are obviously now in a way afraid that perhaps their agricultural industry may turn sour, and they are having a new look at it. I think the same thing could easily happen here. It is no longer true to feel that agriculture in England can be brushed aside, that it is a relatively unimportant thing and that we must go ahead with all our resources put to industrial effort. It might have been true a hundred years ago, but it certainly is not true now. We must look at this matter from a totally different angle from the one from which we have been viewing it in the last fifty years.
My Lords, I come back to what I said before: that within the framework of the present status quo this is not an altogether unreasonable Review. I do not believe that within that framework, if you accept that framework, the farmers could very well have asked for more. Certainly it is better than a good many of the last Reviews we have had: those in 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1963. I do not believe that a Conservative Government, accepting this same framework, could have done anything different at all; and the explosion which has come from the farmers now, the rage and despair, is, I think, that they genuinely felt that now that Labour had come back into power there

1025
would be a new look at this problem. I think the farmers are disappointed in feeling that this is not a new look; it is the same old thing as we have had before.
I feel that this framework, which is too much accepted by members of both the other two main Parties, has, in fact, become a straitjacket, and that we have got ourselves into a very difficult position in that only milk and cereals are really very profitable. Indeed, so far as milk is concerned this has aggravated our structure problem in this way: where the small farmer, in relation to the rest of the industry, should possibly be concentrating on meat, he cannot, because the profit is not there, and he has to concentrate on milk. That has had a deleterious effect on the whole situation. We cannot make a case at all for further expansion of milk. On the other hand, we do need—if I am right in suggesting that we should be concentrating more on import saving—very much more meat and cereals.
The line we probably ought to take—this is the sort of difficulty one is in: how we are to make this balance right—is to allow cereals to find their own price. There is a great difference between the price of cereals in this country and the supported price abroad. So this means, in fact, a rise in cereal prices. I think the effect of this will be that it will gradually eliminate subsidy on cereals. As the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, says, a share for the British farmer in an expanding cereal market is not enough. We must have something more. It is necessary to allow the price of cereals to go up and save a certain amount of imports by letting the price go up. The same also applies to the cattle herd. We have to increase it, but in such a way that we do not flood ourselves with milk. What this means is that we have to make beef more profitable. The hill cow subsidy and the hill sheep subsidy are an improvement and a great help, but they are simply not enough. What we want is a totally different conception both of beef and of cereals, as regards subsidies.
This is, after all, Common Market policy. This is what has been happening in the rest of Europe, and it is what the Liberal Party have been advocating for a long time. In this context I quite
1026
genuinely feel that ours has been the only truly expansionist policy with regard to agriculture. I notice the noble Lord laughs. I have often admitted that, so far as this Party is concerned, in many ways our agricultural policy is not particularly strong, but nor is that of the noble Lord's Party or of the Party now in office. We are all in the same predicament; so are the Americans, the French and Russians. This is one of those extremely difficult problems. There simply is no easy solution. Be that as it may, this is the general Common Market policy, and I think we ought to be steering towards it.
I know that this may mean that meat is going to rise in price. We are the only country, or very nearly the only country, not paying the proper price for meat. If you like, why not use some of the saving on cereals, if you let the price rise there, in a consumer direction so far as the rising price of meat is concerned? In any case, I feel it is not reasonable that we should always consider that we must have our food for nothing. So far as consumer goods are concerned people are prepared to go on paying more and more, but so far as food is concerned there is always this feeling that food must be "for nowt".
We must re-examine the whole relation of the home production and food imports, and this is what the Price Review and the White Paper do not do. Nineteenth century conditions do not apply. Again, may I remind your Lordships that technically British agriculture is probably the best in the world. In relation to American agriculture it is higher as regards output per man than British industry is in relation to American industry. The national productivity over the whole country has risen by 3·2 per cent. and that of agriculture by 6 per cent. May I remind your Lordships, too, that it has less protection than it has in any other country in Europe. In fact, the degree of protection is more or less the same as British industry gets. The British farmer is not overpaid. If you look at the average incomes over the last 16 years, I think you will find that the N.F.U. have a good point in suggesting that whereas the national income has risen by something like 56 per cent., farming income has risen by only 1 per cent. I am not suggesting that this has anything to do with guaranteeing

1027
farmers' income. I am saying there is a tendency for a lot of the so-called farm subsidies to be, in fact, the other way round. The farmers are carrying the burden for a lot of the improved conditions industrially.
Most of our imports come from the U.S.A., from Australia and from Canada. Are we really going to hurt them so much it we change the balance in this direction by quite a small amount? I do not think we are. In any case they are all countries with a much higher standard of living than ours. Also, it might help to make food available for some of the poorer countries. One tends to forget that before the war something like one-third of the population of the poorer countries was undernourished. The appalling fact is that it is now something like one-half. In those circumstances, can the expansion—this is what we are talking about now—of British agriculture, which is so efficient, damage British industry? I do not think it can. I do not think that these old 19th century views about the place of agriculture in the British economy are any longer valid. But I see no signs that this view prevails in the present Government's policy towards agriculture.

POLICY ON RAILWAY CLOSURES AND WORKSHOPS
3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, for the convenience of the House and particularly of my noble friend, because there is nothing worse than being interrupted, with your Lordships' permission I will now repeat a Statement on two aspects of railway policy, one of which affects other nationalised industries, which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. With your Lordships' permission I will use his words. The Statement reads:
"In my Statement to the House on November 4 last, I explained that my policy on passenger closures was being developed in accordance with the Government's policy on national and regional planning. Now that regional economic planning councils and boards have been established for most of the country, I have decided to consult them
1028
about any proposed withdrawal of passenger services. Accordingly, as from to-day, where regional councils and boards exist they will be given full opportunity to advise me on the planning implications of any proposed closure for the regions with which they are concerned, before I make a decision. This arrangement will apply to all outstanding proposals published by the Railways Board on which I have not yet reached a decision and to all proposals which are published in the future.
It will apply also to those not published but referred to me, to consider whether they are clearly unacceptable front the start, under the special arrangement I announced in my previous Statement.
This procedure will ensure that regional planning is not prejudiced by rail passenger closures, and will ensure that in those cases in which I decide that closures are justified, I have been able to take account of all relevant considerations.
As the House knows, I have also undertaken to make a further Statement on workshop policy. This involves much more than British Railways workshops, although these are the establishments about which honourable Members have expressed most concern. The Government are convinced that not only the British Railways Board but other nationalised industries should be free to employ and develop their manufacturing resources to the best effect. We intend, therefore, as opportunity arises, to introduce legislation to remove statutory limitations which impede the nationalised industries.
The reorganisation of British Railways workshops is now almost complete and their modernisation well advanced. The removal of the restrictions will enable these national assets to be employed to the fullest extent."
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord for giving us the Statement. So far as the second part of the Statement, referring to the workshops, is concerned, I do not think it would serve any useful purpose for me to comment on that now.

1029
Obviously we shall have to wait for the legislation which he has promised and which we shall have to study very carefully.
As regards the earlier part of the Statement, on the closures, what immediately strikes one is that the Government, for reasons which no doubt seem good to them, are deliberately imposing a new link in the chain, so to speak. How much further delay is this going to entail before essential decisions are made? Obviously it could mean a very great deal of delay, and we wonder whether the noble Lord would give some assurance that they simply are not going to put back making difficult decisions for a very long time.
LORD REA: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, about the second part of the Statement, which obviously is very controversial and I think will need special debate. With regard to the first part, I have rather a different view from the noble Lord. It seems to me that the Government have a good policy on national and regional planning, but they are now looking to these regional committees, whatever they may be, merely for advice, which the Minister may or may not take. They are not yet strengthening enough the regionalisation and letting responsibility come from the regions as much as they indicated they were going to. I hope they will take a much stronger line, give more power and more decision to the people involved, so that questions such as the closures of railways against very strong popular opinion in the areas concerned may have much more consideration, and so that other questions of the same sort may have more consideration than in the past.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for their references to railway workshops? I am glad they have taken that view, because I am only a Parliamentary Secretary and not a Parliamentary draftsman and I should have been in deep water if they had asked questions on the possible extent of legislation. To return to the new procedure for railway closures, and to deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about advice to the Minister and the right of the Minister to make a decision, the view taken by the Minister—and I think most Ministers would take the same view—is that the decision must be his. He
1030
cannot pass his responsibilities on to outside bodies. He has the right and the duty to take advice and, in the light of that advice, to take the responsibility for a decision, which he must make and which is, through the Minister, the responsibility of the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred to the possibility of delay, and this is a point that will have to be watched. It is not intended that there will be an opportunity for delay. Submissions to the transport users' consultative committees and to the regional boards will be simultaneous. There will be a time limit on their discussions and we hope that the decisions will be very speedy. But the Minister takes the view that transport is an essential part of the economic development of a region, and, therefore, that those who have been given the responsibility for regional development ought to have some say in the part that railways, that transport, should play in regard to it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I ask one further question, for clarification? The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has just said that a time limit for consideration will be imposed. Does that mean that a time limit will be imposed on the regional economic planning councils and on the boards?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, perhaps I went a little further than I ought to have done. The position is that closure proposals are made to the Minister and then they are published and they will go both to the T.U.C.C. and to the regional boards. In many cases the regional boards will have had a preview of them because they are submitted to the Minister first in order that he can decide whether or not they should obviously be rejected on economic planning grounds. Cases will go direct to the boards before they are published and we do not think there will be any delay. There may be a slight delay later because there will be decisions already awaiting the Minister's consideration that have been to the transport users' consultative committee. They will be submitted to the regional boards immediately this arrangement comes into operation, but, with the co-operation of the regional boards, we do not think there need be any delay.
3.44 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? If it is right for regional boards to be consulted about passenger closures, is there not also something to be said for them to be consulted about the withdrawal of freight services? I appreciate that the Minister does not come into the matter in the same way in each case, but it would not follow from that alone that the regional board should not be consulted.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, passengers and freight, as the noble Lord appreciates, are two different entities. The person who is sending goods from place to place does not really worry by which route they go. If a passenger service is not withdrawn and the line is open the tendency is for freight to remain on the line. The withdrawal of freight services generally arises only when the passenger service is withdrawn and there is a requirement for the removal of the line, but it may also arise where there has been a concentration of collection and delivery stations. In these instances it is entirely a matter for those who have the responsibility of managing the railways and arranging the collection and delivery of goods to do it in the best possible manner, so that the services they give to their customers are in the interests of the economy of the country.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, with regard to closures in Wales, will the decision be made by the Ministry of Transport or the Secretary of State for Wales? If the Minister consults the Secretary of State for Wales and they arrive at different decisions, when the Minister gives his decision shall we be informed of what the Secretary of State recommended?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, having listened to a number of Welshmen over a period of time, I did not know there were any railways left in Wales; but in so far as this procedure arises, of course the Welsh Regional Board will be consulted and my right honourable friend, as is usual among Ministers, will consult his right honourable friend.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I was asking about who would make the deci-
1032
sion because, after all, the promise was made that the Secretary of State for Wales was going to take over tremendous responsibilities and I wondered whether this was one of them.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, he will not be taking over that one, but, of course, the Minister of Transport is a member of the Government and the Government accept corporate responsibility for all their actions.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two specific questions? I understand there have been proposals for the closure of the Heath-field line and the Forest Row link line. This has been considered by the T.U.C.C. Will this now go before the regional board and, if it does, will the regional board be able to consider the question of the feasibility of light railway operation?—because I understand that the T.U.C.C. can consider only the question of hardship and not another form of operation on these or other lines.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I cannot remember all proposals in regard to individual closures that are coming forward, but I can say that if a decision has not yet been given on any proposal by my right honourable friend, it will be referred to the regional board for consideration and for their observations. The transport users' consultative committees are different. They are concerned with hardship to individuals, the numbers of persons likely to travel, whether they are, say, men going to work or women going to market. Submissions to boards are on social and economic grounds from the point of view of productivity and the creation of wealth. So far as light railways are concerned, I cannot give any authoritative answer, but if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question I should be only too pleased to answer it, or I will send him a reply by letter.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. If I understand him aright, the regional boards will be able to accept a wider view of the problem than the T.U.C.C. can.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, yes: they will be considering the economic and social problems arising from a closure.
LORD WISE: My Lords, if the matter comes before the board and the board advise the Minister that the railway should not be closed, will the matter then be considered by the T.U.C.C.?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, all proposals will be considered by both bodies. Their functions are different. The transport users' consultative committees are concerned only with hardship to individuals, whereas the regional boards are concerned with the general national and regional planning of the area and the productivity of industry within it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what will be the position in what is known as the South-East Study area? That can conceivably be one part or cut up into two, three or four parts. If the regional boards in that area are not going to be formed soon, will there be a standstill on all closures until they are?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, so far as the South-East is concerned there is as yet no regional board, and pending the establishment of such a board there will be discussions between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Department of Economic Affairs, the Treasury and the Board of Trade and so on in regard to them. So consultation, instead of being with the regional board, will be among the Government Departments concerned.

AGRICULTURE
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is a seasoned campaigner in these Price Review debates, whereas perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is somewhat more in the category in which I find myself—a comparatively new recruit—although he, like Lord St. Oswald, has the benefit of a practical background in farming, to which I can make no claim. Tt is perhaps because of this aspect, my being a new recruit, that I still have a certain feeling of
1034
unreality when I find myself standing at this Box. This feeling of unreality has never been stronger than today when I speak on the subject of agriculture.
I must say that Lord St. Oswald did nothing to dispel this feeling of unreality in the somewhat fanciful picture he painted of the enthusiasm with which the farmers had received Price Reviews, uniformly, year in year out, during the period of Conservative Government, and that in fact nothing had gone wrong until the year 1965. I could almost imagine him forgetting that anybody like Tom Williams had ever existed, and that he and his colleagues had invented the whole procedure either before, in or since 1947.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord reads my speech, he will regard his version of it as very bizarre indeed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I shall have the greatest pleasure in reading both speeches which the noble Lord has written—the one that he wrote for himself, and the reply which he wrote for my noble friend Lord Champion—although I doubt that, when I read his reply written for Lord Champion, it will necessarily be identical with the one which my noble friend himself will make in due course. I also have an apology to make to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who, at one very serious stage in his remarks, thought that either my noble friend Lord Champion or myself (I think it was I) was laughing. It was, I regret to say, at something which had nothing at all to do with the Price Review. It was one of my noble friend Lord Lindgren's witticisms. But I apologise for the wrong impression which it created in the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
One does not need to be an agricultural expert to realise that the subject of this debate is one that is vital for every member of our community, not only to the farmer, not only to the agricultural community but to the community at large. In our largely industrialised society it is unfortunate that the problems of agriculture are not such widespread knowledge on the part of the community as a whole as perhaps one would like them to be. Perhaps it will not be the least useful part of the debate which is taking place in this House this afternoon, and that which is taking place at the same

1035
time in another place, if they help to spread a deeper knowledge of agriculture's contribution to the economy as a whole and of the problems involved.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, referred to the general dissatisfaction among farmers with their income position. He thought that I was taking a somewhat bizarre view of his speech, and he will probably form the same opinion of what I am now about to say.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD: I expect so.
LORD HUGHES: It seems to be quite possible on both sides of the Table to predict what the reaction is going to be to remarks. What I was about to say was that this dissatisfaction among farmers seems to be a natural result of preelection generosity, because both the 1955 and 1959 Election years produced favourable Reviews. As I think Lord Henley pointed out, the Reviews which immediately followed were disagreed Reviews, which were not greeted by the farmers with the same acclamation. Farmers are not, of course, alone in thinking that their incomes are too low and should be improved. This is a feeling which, rightly or wrongly, many other sections of the community share. But the farmers at least are in the position that their grievances are of long standing. They arise, in the main, from a series of disagreed annual Reviews.
Your Lordships will forgive me for mentioning that, of the last ten Annual Reviews, including the present one, six have been disagreed. This inadequacy of income, as the farmers consider it to be, has been the main cause of difficulty of Annual Reviews in the past, and all the three farming unions have disagreed the Price Review because they did not think the resulting figures of income to the farmer were satisfactory. In their current publicity, the N.F.U., not unexpectedly, are giving particular prominence to this matter. They emphasise two main points. First of all, that the level of net income in farming is inadequate to give a proper return on the capital investments, particularly if one has regard to the rate of increased productivity being achieved; and, secondly, that farming incomes are lagging behind those of other sections of the community.
1036
I wish to emphasise—and I think that the farmers themselves, if they look more closely at the matter, will realise this—that in very large measure the reason for their disappointment at this Price Review is that it comes on top of all that has gone before. As Lord Henley said, the farmers, thinking back to the change in their position which stemmed from the 1947 Act, expected from this Government—even in the circumstances which exist—miracles which, in the light of their experience, they would not expect from the Conservative Party. I would remind your Lordships that while the farmers have not demonstrated in the past after Reviews as they are doing at the present time, they have had worse Reviews than the present one.
One gets a good idea of what the industry is left with, when one takes into account increased costs of £29 million, the award of £10·4 million, and the assumed gain from increased efficiency. And, I would remind your Lordships that the last item has been taken throughout all the years from 1951 onwards at £25 million. I mention that particularly, because if it is wrong to assume it at £25 million this year, it has been equally wrong to assume it at £25 million in all the years before. I would suggest that there must have been many times when this figure was wrong, but I believe that it is generally accepted that, over a run of years, the figure of £25 million is probably pretty near the average, taking one year with another. Taking these figures together, as I say, one gets a good idea of what the industry is left with. This year it is plus £6½ million. That compares with last year's figure of plus £32 million—a very vast difference, as Lord St. Oswald will be surprised to hear me admit.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not see how the noble Lord could do anything else.
LORD HUGHES: I could have done what the noble Lord did, and draw a veil completely over the figures. In 1962, taking all the figures, the farmers had a net reduction of £5½ million; in 1960, the net increase was £3 million; in 1958, it was minus £5 million; in 1954, it was plus £1½ million; and in 1951 it was minus £8 million. These are the bad Reviews over a period. I say once again

1037
that the main source of the farmers' dissatisfaction is that it has been cumulative. This particular Review has disappointed them more than somewhat because they perhaps hoped against hope that they were back to 1947.
It was in 1947 that the farming position began to improve. I was particularly interested to see that in the four-year farm expansion programme of the Labour Government in 1947 the money income, both in actual cash and in real terms, expanded considerably, probably more so than at any other period, before or since. Of course, things then were different. As a result of the changeover from war-time conditions, the country needed a very considerable expansion in food. Very heavy targets were placed before the farmers. They responded magnificently; there was a 20 per cent. increase in output over the period, and net incomes rose by 20 per cent. on an actual basis, although when adjusted for what is regarded as normal weather conditions—which is a rather foxing business for the layman—the 20 per cent. becomes 14 per cent.
At this Review, the Government had to accept the farm incomes position as they found it. The settlement at the 1964 Review was an exceptionally generous one (even for an Election year) and 1964-65 proved in general a good farming year. Net incomes for the United Kingdom as a whole in 1964–65 are expected to rise by £63 million or 15 per cent., or, allowing for the favourable season, by £31 million or more than 7 per cent. We know that these large aggregates of income conceal a tremendous variation from one farmer to another, depending on their scale of enterprise, their choice of products, the natural difficulties they have to face, their skill in management and so on. This is an aspect which the Government had very much in mind during the Review discussions and when setting out the main lines of the long-term policy which is outlined in the White Paper and to which I shall be referring further in a few moments.
This welcome improvement in the industry's general income position was, of course, only one of a number of factors which the Government took into account before making their determinations. The increased costs, to which I have already
1038
referred, of £29 million facing the industry, the difficult state of the economy and trading obligations and commitments, and what might strike a fair balance between consumers and farmers, were all factors which had to be taken into account. In all these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government believe that the award of £10·4 million is a fair one. I emphasise "in all these circumstances". We still leave the industry with part of its higher productivity, which provides opportunities in certain sections of the Review, in particular, for a further rise in farm incomes in 1965–66.
Your Lordships would not expect me to ignore the subject of milk. A good deal of the criticism levelled at this year's Price Review has been concentrated on the award of 1d. per gallon for milk. There has also been a fair amount of alarmist talk, to which the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, added his little quota, that there will be a rapid decline in milk production. Let us look at the facts of the situation and to its history over the past few years. If we do so, I certainly cannot agree that there are grounds for that criticism, and I suggest that your Lordships will not be able to agree either.
In 1964–65 milk production in the United Kingdom, allowing for all the uncertainties of prediction, seems likely to be 1 to 1½ per cent. below the figure for 1962–63, the highest production so far attained. In that year it was over 2,500 million gallons. There was a drop in production of some 2½ per cent. in the year 1963–64, but a fair proportion of that drop has been made good in the last year, notwithstanding this prediction of a continued constant decline in the numbers in the industry. Just over two-thirds of our home production of milk goes for liquid consumption and the rest into the manufacturing market, where it realises, on average, a price very much below the guaranteed price fixed for the "standard" quantity. It is not, therefore, in the interests of producers as a whole that production in excess of the "standard" quantity should keep on rising at a faster rate than the increase in liquid sales. Noble Lords may recall the problem that faced the previous Government over the three years prior to 1962–63. Production increased each year by an average of 110 million gallons, but liquid consumption increased by only 22 million gallons. As a result, the average

1039
"pool" price received by producers fell by 2d. per gallon over that period.
A better balance has been achieved since then, and Her Majesty's Government believe that one of the effects of what has been done in relation to milk will be to keep the average "pool" price which the farmer receives to the highest possible figure. It would not, in fact, be a help to the farmer to encourage him to produce large extra quantities of milk, which might have been the result if much more than 1d. had been provided. He would thereby get only the manufacturing price for the extra quantity, giving him a very much lower price over his whole sales than he otherwise would have had.
There has been a substantial decrease in the number of milk producers. Five years ago there were 150,000 of them; this year the figure has fallen to 125,000. But I would remind your Lordships that this has been almost entirely balanced by a steady increase in the average size of the dairy herd and an increase in milk yields. In Scotland, for example—and your Lordships will forgive me for quoting a figure with which I am more familiar; but it is typical of the United Kingdom—the average size of the dairy herd has risen from 35 ten years ago to 45 at the present time. So although one-sixth of the producers have disappeared from the dairy scene, it does not follow that there is the same reduction either in cows or in milk. This growth in average size, and in the specialisation that goes with it, reflects what is happening in all branches of farming and in most other industries. Few people would wish to deny that this is the proper way for those who remain in milk production—the great majority of them—to make their own contribution towards the betterment of their income.
But having said that, I wish to say that the Government do not underestimate the difficulties facing milk producers, or the arduous nature of their task. This is, perhaps, an aspect with which everyone must be impressed—the arduous nature of the task of the man who keeps a dairy herd—and we should like him to be assured of a proper reward. But we have had a look at the facts of the situation as they exist. If we had to consider only what was the
1040
best thing to do for the farmers, we might well have produced a different award, but the farmers have had to fit into the general picture that exists. After a long period of pressure on the milk producers' returns, an award of 2½d. per gallon was given last year. This was by far the largest increase they had ever had in the guaranteed price, and because of it, and because the amount of milk going for manufacture declined, the average pool price received by producers has markedly increased. It needed the combination of these—a reduction in the quantity and an increase in the price.
The Government are confident that the combined effect of this improvement, and the 1d. per gallon award this year—which, after all, despite all that has been said of it, is the highest since 1952, except for last year's award—should produce an improvement in dairy net incomes without unduly stimulating production. When one talks about helping the balance-ofpayments situation by discouraging imports, I would point out that we certainly could discourage imports of manufactured milk, in the sense of butter and cheese, if this were felt to be the right policy. But if, as a result of that, the farmer is going to get a big increase in the quantity of his milk which is being paid for at manufacturing price, he is going to be worse off at the end of the day, rather than better off. The farmer knows that, although perhaps in his disappointment he tends sometimes to overlook it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, is the noble Lord now leaving dairying?
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES: Yes.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is by no means an unfriendly intervention, because I recognise that a lot of what the noble Lord says about the pool price in a decreasing national herd is logical, although only so far as it goes; but what he has not referred to is one point on which I touched, and that is the effect on the beef herd if, although sufficient milk is still being produced, dairy calves are no longer available to the beef herd. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to touch on that.
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords, I should prefer to leave it. After all, at the outset the noble Lord assumed that

1041
my noble friend was to reply to everything. He must not now jump to the other extreme and assume that I am to leave him nothing.
I wish to go on to cereals, because this is another point on which Her Majesty's Government have been attacked by both Parties opposite, but for totally different reasons. The Government fully appreciate that the cuts in the guaranteed prices of wheat and barley are unpalatable to growers, because if somebody has been getting a certain element of income and he finds that it is going to be diminished by 1s. 4d. in one case and something else in another, and he multiplies that by a figure and finds that, by adding in everything else in sight, it produces a reduction of £3,000, obviously he is not going to be enthusiastic about it. But we must face the fact that home production has increased far beyond the standard quantities fixed at the Annual Review a year ago.
Now the noble Lords of the Liberal Party are perhaps in a better position than the rest of us are on this matter, because they are not accepting the whole conception of standard quantities; but the noble Lords in the Conservative Party certainly cannot argue that, because we are putting into operation what they arranged. As a matter of fact, if I remember rightly, it was the Economist which said that in this matter they had set a time bomb which had exploded under the present Government.
What is the effect of it? In the combined production of wheat and barley there is an increase beyond the standard quantities of nearly 1¼ million tons. In the result, in the current year the imports from our traditional suppliers have fallen below the target level—which is the average of the previous three years; not a bad bargain, I should have thought—by 800,000 tons. I doubt very much whether the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in his desire, perhaps, not to be unfair to Her Majesty's Government but to be legitimately hard on them, was really fair to certain other Governments—and he mentioned in particular the Government of Canada, because that was the particular letter from which he was quoting. I do not accept the fact—nor, I am sure, would the Government of Canada accept it—that they had driven a hard
1042
or an unfair bargain with Her Majesty's Government in what has been arranged. On the contrary, I should think—
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I said "better bargain", I think. My implication was that they had driven a better bargain than our Government.
LORD HUGHES: It may be, but what the noble Lord is saying is that he would have been unfair to the Government of Canada. This comes strangely from a noble Lord who is representative of those who, long before taking over the present agricultural support system of their own invention, had regarded the Commonwealth as their private preserve. So it is perhaps a rather unusual charge that is being levelled by him against us, that we have been kinder, or less hard, to the Dominion of Canada than he would have wished to be. We do not think we have been either kind or hard. We think that what has been done is fair. In the end, it produces the result which the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches do not like, not because they think it is unfair, but because they think the system is wrong.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE: Hear, hear!
LORD HUGHES: I am not going into that; I will leave that to my noble friend Lord Champion. It is a nice one. After all, he can take on the whole Liberal Party, of which there is a good representation here to-day.
Now the last Government, with the approval of the National Farmers' Union, entered into commitments with our overseas suppliers—and remember this: this was not something which the last Government imposed upon the farmers; they did this by agreement. What the farmers wanted were minimum import prices, and what had to be paid for the minimum import prices was the sharing of the home market. Without these agreements and the minimum import arrangements there would not have been the floor for a cereals market which we now have. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, touched lightly on the fact that the cereals decision was not just a cut in the amount of money but was accompanied by an increase in the standard quantities. The increase in the standard quantities is not as insignificant

1043
as he would have us believe. The increase for wheat is 100,000 tons, and the increase for barley is 250,000 tons. So that reflects the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the home producers are to get a reasonable share of the expanding total cereals market—and that they have been given in very large measure, as, for instance, the amount of money involved will indicate.
The subsidy bill in the present year is expected to be £63 million. Notwithstanding the operation of the standard quantities, the bill is expected to rise to £76 million in respect of the 1965–66 cereal crops. So there is another £13 million in that. Now I must immediately say that this is based on predictions, and almost every one of these calculations can be falsified in the event by the conditions which actually turn out by way of weather and harvest.
I had been intending to say something about potatoes, but I think the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will not be disappointed if I leave the "hot potatoes" on my noble friend's plate. I should like to say a brief word about beef, because it has some bearing on the other aspects in relation to milk. In view of the general world market prospect for beef, the Government thought it right to provide a further measure of encouragement for the home producer. A total of £8 million has been provided for this purpose, and we have tried to inject extra money at all the main points in the production process—breeding, rearing and fattening. The guarantee for fat cattle has been raised by 4s. per live hundredweight; and, in addition, increases have been made in the rates of calf subsidy and hill cow subsidy. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, referred to these.
We must look to the dairy herd for a large part of our home supply, and it is here, perhaps, that there is the main scope for increasing supplies by encouraging retention of many of the calves that now go for slaughter at an early age. The Government propose to extend the calf subsidy so as to admit heifers of dairy breeds that are seen at the point of slaughter to provide acceptable beef carcases satisfying the requirements of the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. Beef production is a long-term
1044
business, involving decisions by producers of many different kinds and with varying interests. The spreading of incentives throughout the production chain should ensure a continuing and steady build-up of supplies from all available home sources.
My Lords, in a disagreed Price Review it tends to be assumed in the aftermath that nothing in the Review is acceptable to the Farmers' Unions. This in fact is not the position at all. I doubt very much whether there has ever been a Review in which some aspect has not been pleasing to some section or other of farmers, or in which some aspect has perhaps been pleasing to all farmers. I have mentioned beef, where there was a fair measure of agreement. Other very important aspects generally acceptable to the Farmers' Unions were the Government's proposals for helping the small farmers to raise their efficiency as business units, and the Government's decisions for maintaining prosperity in the hill and upland areas. Of the items in the Review, this will probably be the last aspect to which I shall refer, and as a Scot, I think it is perhaps appropriate that it should be so, because it is a subject which has particular value to my countrymen. I wonder whether noble Lords realise that about one-third of the agricultural acreage of the United Kingdom is devoted to hill farming. In Scotland, rough grazings account for some 12½ million acres, out of a total agricultural areas of 17 million acres. The corresponding figures in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not so dramatic but no less than 5 million acres of England and Wales and three-quarters of a million acres of Northern Ireland are rough grazings.
These hill areas, however, form an indispensable part of the total farming picture. They are the home of the hardy sheep, which form the basis of so many of our low-ground types, and they produce a substantial number of store cattle for fattening on the better land. Under past policies, which in this Review we have reinforced, the hill sheep population has been maintained and the hill cattle population has more than doubled. Hill sheep at present account for approximately one-third of all the breeding animals in the United Kingdom. They represent, in fact, 60 per cent. of all

1045
the sheep in Scotland, 40 per cent. of the total Welsh flock, 27 per cent. in the case of Northern Ireland, and 15 per cent. in England. The hill areas produce annually not far short of half a million store cattle. The Scottish hills contain two-thirds of all the beef cows in the country, or one-third of the total Scottish cow population. In the other parts of the United Kingdom, hill cows amount to 15 per cent. of the total in Northern Ireland, while there are lower figures for England and Wales. As a total for the United Kingdom, they represent 9 per cent. of the whole. In addition to the figures that I have given, the hill areas also carry, on the better land, substantial numbers of crossbred sheep.
My Lords, I have not given a great many statistics. I have given a few in this particular category, perhaps more than can reasonably be digested at the speed at which I have been throwing them out, but I hope that some of your Lordships may do me the honour of looking at them again when it will perhaps be easier to follow them. But I hope that I have put into your minds the importance of this section of agriculture to the country as a whole, and how important, therefore, it is that perhaps the most favourable part of the Price Review has been given to this particular section, where at the end of the day it will probably have the best results. The proper development of these areas must be a feature of balanced, regional development and, if your Lordships will forgive my mentioning it, of the plans of the proposed Highland Development Board.
As announced in the White Paper, the Government propose to consider urgently what more should be done to make the best use of agricultural resources in these areas, having regard to the economic, social and other factors involved. Meanwhile, we have increased the hill cattle subsidy by £1, and the hill sheep subsidy has been stabilised at 18s. per ewe. We have increased the rates of calf subsidy by 10s. per calf, which, though not confined to the hill farmers, is of considerable benefit to them. We have adapted the scheme of winter keep grants in England and Wales and Northern Ireland to a system of headage payments, although Scottish farmers decided that the maintenance of acreage payments,
1046
together with small headage payments, was better for them than going on to the English system. These decisions have been dismissed in some quarters as fringe benefits, but I am certain that no one with the interest of the hill areas at heart will regard them as such.
Time is passing, and I must turn over the pages and leave some subjects unmentioned. But I should like to say this: the pointers in the first part of this year's Annual Review White Paper to longer-term policy are not at the moment getting the consideration they deserve, due to the controversy about farm incomes, but I believe that in due course they will be regarded as the first fruits of a constructive effort to deal with the more fundamental problems facing the industry. We are still considering the important subject of the place of agriculture in the National Economic Development Plan which is in course of preparation. Nevertheless, there are certain lines of development which can play an essential part in the maintenance and improvement of the industry's fine record. There are immediate steps which we can take and which form part of the settlement at this Review. Management and marketing are good examples. There is, I believe, wide agreement that we have not yet explored the full possibilities of higher efficiency in these two spheres.
So far as management is concerned, there is little doubt that, just as much as in industry, the taking of correct decisions on farming operations must rest on a firm basis of comprehensive and suitable records of all the processes involved. The revised Small Farmer Schemes will be based on the keeping and use of farm records, but we wish to give a much wider impetus to the practice. Farmers not eligible for aid tinder the Small Farmer Schemes will qualify for grant assistance towards the cost of having the right kind of records kept. This is a new form of grants scheme, but we intend to get it off the ground this year by the introduction of pilot schemes in certain areas. I certainly hope that we shall be able to move on to a much wider application of this assistance in 1966.
On the marketing side, there is, I believe, wide agreement that far more could be achieved by co-operation. We

1047
intend to carry out a study of the whole field of co-operation in agriculture, but we have decided, as an immediate practical step, to extend to agriculture the assistance already provided for horticulture for the development of producers' marketing organisations. We shall be ready to give grants of one-third towards the cost of expanding or increasing the efficiency of existing agricultural producers' marketing organisations or of establishing new ones. The Departments are pressing on with work on the details of this scheme so that they can be announced as soon as possible.
I have touched on quite a number of the aspects of what is a very wide subject, and I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if I have left perhaps almost as much for the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to deal with when he winds up. But I should like to conclude by reminding you of what I said in the earlier part of this speech about the four-year programme which the Labour Government launched in 1947. If the farmers had then judged what was to come only on the first Review, they would certainly have seriously underestimated the tremendous value to them that the succeeding years proved a Labour Government to be. I would suggest to your Lordships that this is the very mistake which the farmers are in danger of making this year.
4.29 p.m.
LORD HURD: My Lords, as I rise to address your Lordships for the first time I shall try to avoid contentious arguments while I give point to some views on the topics which have been raised by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald. This is not the first debate on Farm Price Reviews in which I have engaged and I am comforted to see my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Champion, sitting on the Front Bench opposite, because he and I often faced one another in such debates in another place. I think that we have generally managed to find a fair amount of common ground about the problems of British agriculture and the progress which it has made through the years.
As your Lordships will readily recall, this progress has been remarkable over the last twenty-five years, since we determined that we must beat the submarines by stepping up production in this country
1048
to the absolute maximum. A great response during the war years was carried on after the war, when we had other problems, no less teasing ones, which could only be met by maintaining a high level of food production at home. All Parties were agreed on the principles of the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts, which gave continuing assurances to the farmers, so that we had an almost non-partisan approach to farm problems. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, reminded us that a good many of the Price Reviews which have flowed from the Agriculture Acts have not been agreed. That is true. It would be a dull world if the farmers, or any other section of the community, always agreed with the Government of the day. But farmers have felt confident enough during these years to plan and invest for greatly increased outputs.
May I remind your Lordships that the net output of British agriculture last year was 108 per cent. above the average of the years before the war, and taking a more recent basis, 1954–56, which the Ministry of Agriculture now seems to prefer, the net output increased 37 per cent. over the ten-year period. That was a remarkable performance, when agriculture was already geared to high production. These figures are some measure of the revolution which has involved the whole farming community—farmers and landowners, farm workers and those who supply requisites to the farming community. Our countryside hums with activity. The tractor, combine harvester and grain drier have taken the place of the carter and his pair of horses. As a result of mechanisation, agriculture, with no more than 400,000 full-time workers, now produces twice as much food as 700,000 full-time workers were able to produce before the war.
Incidentally, it is good to know, in these days of recurring balance-of-payments crises, that our farm machine industry has developed to such good purpose that we exported last year £164 million worth of tractors and agricultural machinery. This is quite new business which Britain did not do before the war. It is now our fifth largest export industry, based on a highly productive and progressive home agriculture.
What does the future hold? Some of my friends who speak for the National

1049
Farmers' Unions in the counties—a good many years ago I did so myself—rushed in immediately upon the publication of this year's Price Review award to curse the Minister of Agriculture. That is quite understandable. I do not quite accept the suggestion that, because there has been a change of Government, farmers were expecting a more generous deal than they had in recent years. I do not think that demonstrations and suggestions of physical force will do the farmers' cause any good. What is needed is the education of Her Majesty's present Ministers—I am being non-contentious—in so far as they have failed to do their homework and have not really understood that shortsighted and ill-advised price and policy decisions this year can undermine confidence and upset the course of rising productivity, on which our farming has been firmly set in recent years to the great advantage not only of the land but of the nation as a whole. This confidence is a rather delicate plant and all too easily can be upset.
So I welcome the ready response which the Prime Minister gave to the request of the leaders of the National Farmers' Union for a meeting. He has asked them to dine with him at Downing Street. He is treating them as the responsible leaders of a great industry. We can all hope that they will have an enlightening evening together.
Do we want increased productivity from our agriculture or have we got far enough? I think we must ask the Government for a straight answer to this question. After all, it is a new Government and might therefore be expected to have a different view from that of the Conservative Government over recent years. We find that the Price Review this year puts a damper on cereal growing by a sharp cut in the price guarantees for wheat and barley, makes an inadequate recompense for the increased costs that milk producers generally will face in the year ahead, makes another cut in the guaranteed price for eggs, gives no certainty about pig prospects beyond the projected increase in imports of bacon, about which I see that Poland and other countries are now rejoicing, and imposes a reduction in the fertiliser subsidy, which is likely this year, as last year, to result in higher costs to farmers. The overall picture is an increase in farmers' cost
1050
of £29 million in the year to come. The recent wage rise and increased figures for rents and interest are significant features in the build-up of increased costs. As the value of the guarantees goes up by no more than £10½ million, the industry is left to meet the balance of £18½ million.
In this reckoning, a modest plus sign is marked up for hill sheep. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the importance of hill sheep and cattle. They are a great reservoir for the Low-lands by providing us with sound and hardy stock for finishing on better ground. I welcome that plus sign very much. There are also modest plus signs for beef cattle, milk, potatoes and sugar beet. I think it is generally agreed that these will no more than barely cover the increased cost of production in each case.
An increase of 4s. per cwt. on the guarantee for beef cattle, and a trifle more on the calf-rearing subsidy, are sensible moves but hardly significant. The world is short of beef and all the extra we can produce will be wanted. Would it not be prudent to increase the guarantee by, say, 9s. a cwt., making it 180s. a cwt., and, moreover, to give an assurance that the guarantee will not fall below this figure in the next four years? I suggest this, having recently been in Argentina, which is suffering from drought, and after hearing what I have from business connections in Australia, which also is suffering from a bad drought.
I think that the Government should look again at the beef price and the assurance given to producers. It is not going to cost the Treasury very much, because the price of beef is going up. But will the British public have their beef in a year or two's time? I think decisions taken this spring may be quite crucial on that point. I am sure that an incoming Conservative Government later this year or next year would confirm this assurance, projecting an increased beef price per head for four years, if the present Government were inclined to provide it. So I trust that Ministers will look at this matter again.
To turn to milk, it looks as if we shall get all-in about an extra l¼d. a gallon, 1d. straight and another 1¼d. probably on the increase on the standard quantity. This l¼d. a gallon will not, I fear, keep in milk production many whose herds of 20, 30 or 40 cows are barely paying

1051
now. The money is not good enough to hold them tied to their cows for a seven-day week, Saturdays and Sundays included, when Mr. Everyman and his wife are driving down to the sea or otherwise enjoying themselves.
As your Lordships know, the trend is now towards ever bigger production units in milk, as well as in hens. Even so, the herd of 120 or 150 cows looked after by two men has to carry a relief milker to give a reasonable working week. So this is not all-that-cheap labour. To-day a couple in charge per head of 150 cows will earn between them up to—and it may be a little more—£2,500 a year; and the head cowman in charge of a herd of 80 cows will earn, and deserve to earn, £1,000 a year. I am very glad the noble Lord, Lord Collison, is in his place this afternoon, because he and I, although we usually differ in politics, both recognise that the skilled, experienced and responsible farm worker deserves a better wage than he has hitherto been able to command. I am very glad that these key men in the dairy industry are to-day, at long last, getting what I regard as a proper reward for the services they render. It is often a higher reward in wages than the small-holder is getting from his cows, although he works just as long hours and has just as many responsibilities as the herdsman in charge of a big herd on a bigger farm.
In the White Paper that went with the Price Review we are reminded that most of the output of the industry is produced by about one quarter of our 450,000 agricultural holdings. I should like to remind your Lordships of the actual sentence which follows in this White Paper, because it is perhaps the most significant part of the whole Review statement:
"These holdings are for the most part those which, because they have secured economies of scale through the size of their farm businesses, can be expected to have low costs of production."
The bright light of this truth will not, I trust, blind us to the situation that faces all farmers, large and small.
It might interest your Lordships if I ventured for a moment to give you the estimate which the farming company of which I happen to be chairman has
1052
made for the coming year. We farm 4,600 acres in Wiltshire, grain and milk being our two main lines. We reckon that this coming year we shall have to face a minus of £6,800, mainly through lower grain prices, the extra cost of fertilisers and the recent wage and insurance increases. Against this we look for an increase of nearly £2,000, to come from the extra on milk, on calf subsidy and a little extra on the beef cattle price. So our budget leaves us with a minus of £4,800 to be taken care of by further "technological progress." This is, I think, a novel phrase for a Ministry of Agriculture document. But why should the new Departments of State have all the fun with the new jargon? The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have now adopted this, and we read about "technological progress" in a White Paper accompanying the Price Review. It will be quite a tough proposition for this farming company, which has the advantages of size and, I hope and believe, competent management, and certainly a good staff.
So it is not surprising that many individual farmers with, not 4,000 acres, but perhaps 300 acres, including some corn land and perhaps 30 cows and 500 hens, are baffled and angered by this year's Price Review. Your Lordships will have noticed that just the opposite happened in Government circles when it came to deciding what to do about the Post Office. The Government have approved the raising by the Post Office of postal rates to restore profitability and to pay for mechanisation.
There is nothing in the way of any such "capital injection" for farmers in this Price Review. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spoke of the great surge forward in output which followed the 1947 injection of capital into the agricultural industry, in the days of the Labour Government. What the noble Lord says is true. I well remember it, and it had a marked effect. But for most farmers, I am afraid this Price Review is cold comfort when they read in their newspapers about possible plans to amalgamate holdings to help
"improve the structural deficiency of British agriculture";
or about the extension of agricultural co-operatives and group activity, or the development of upland areas and an

1053
extension of the aid scheme for small farmers. All these professions of good intent are admirable; but there is, too, a muffled assurance that
"agriculture's place in the national economic development plan is being studied".
What does it all mean to the man with 300 acres, trying to make a living, who does not know where to turn? Can he get rid of his cows and turn to rearing calves? Can he go on with his hens, or should he pack up? What should he do? He is the man who is sorely tried to-day; and he is the man who has been in our Lobby seeing Members from the other place and, I think, behaving with great restraint. Because he is sorely tried. As your Lordships know if you have met any farmers on that scale in recent days, their prospects are blurred. I think, reading this White Paper, one must ask: Do Her Majesty's present Ministers know where they want to go in agricultural policy? Are they taking advice from those who understand the industry, or are they in the toils of economists and economic planners?
I hope always for the best, and I come to this conclusion in my remarks. In a predominantly industrial country like ours there is, I think, need for a representative Council of Agriculture, drawn from all sections of the industry and the trades which serve agriculture, this Council to be recognised by the Government of the day as the responsible authority to which Ministers, including the Prime Minister, can always turn for confidential consultation, advice and guidance. I think your Lordships will agree that a highly productive agriculture is to-day such an essential part of our national economy and wellbeing that we cannot afford the misunderstandings which have resulted in the present unhappy and unnecessary crisis of confidence in the industry. The Prime Minister can take the first steps to restore confidence when the members of the N.F.U. take dinner with him. We must all hope that he will succeed.
4.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, my first and very pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, upon his maiden speech. I do so with very real pleasure. He and I have met on many occasions in another place on opposite sides of the House, generally discussing
1054
our points of view on the trials and troubles of the agricultural world. He was a recognised authority on agriculture, and we always took note of what he had to tell us. This afternoon he has given us several practical examples which I hope the Minister will note, and will study in Hansard afterwards.
It is pleasant also for me to mention—and I can do so in your Lordships' House—that he was a recognised "pair" with a very old friend of mine, and that their pairing enabled both to give useful services in other directions in the community. We also met on the other side of the world on a Commonwealth Parliamentary mission. In that instance I think we were both talking about farming from the same point of view. The noble Lord has other interests which affect farmers, and I hope that in the course of time, during his membership of your Lordships' House, he will address us on those other interests, and I am certain that we shall always listen to him in a kindly spirit.
My speeches over the last few years have been regular, year by year, on the Price Review. In those speeches I have said pretty well what I thought about the Price Review, but this afternoon I hope to be brief, as there are so many speakers to follow me. Each year in your Lordships' House we have discussed the Price Review after publication, and I do not remember any alteration or amendment having been made by reason of our—or anyone else's—representations or objections. Discussion after publication, with excuses and other observations, have been unsatisfying and futile. I think we should discuss farming matters just after harvest, so that the Government will know then, long before the Price Review is considered, of any suggestions which we may be able to give them. Unfortunately, our discussion to-day will achieve the usual result, and whatever we may say or suggest will fall vainly on the ears of the Government, as it always has done on past Governments: we shall fail to change one word or figure in this year's Price Review.
In spite of the interesting eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, we shall make no impact whatever; and when the next Price Review comes to be considered, our words will not be referred to, and will probably he forgotten. This Price Review, in some

1055
respects, does not denote an agreed settlement between representatives of the National Farmers' Union and the Government; and the Government, entrusted with national interests, holds the scales and has come to what it considers to be a fair result. It is as well to realise this, and I am afraid that this coming year those engaged in the farming industry must accept it.
Tractor and animal parades, to the annoyance of other users of the highway, will serve no purpose; and the stoppage of milk supplies will embitter consumers in thousands of homes and tend to destroy the esteem in which agricultural producers are held by other members of the community, who for generations have benefited by the heavy toil of those who live and work on the land. If rewards for services rendered are parsimonious—as indeed they may be in existing circumstances in the dairying industry—then my voice is on the side of the producer. But—and here I utter a word of warning to those in that section of the industry who have recently assumed the rôle of agitators—their complaint will be ignored by the adoption of an attitude of defiance.
I know something of the difficulties of dairy farmers. In my earlier days of farming, before the general introduction of machine milking, I had a dairy herd of about 50 milking cows which were milked by hand twice a day. Admittedly, at that time I was more of a watcher than a milker, but later I could operate the milking units with some measure of success. Milking early in the morning and again in the afternoon tends to pall, and soon loses its attractions. Milking is not a job which is universally sought after and should, therefore, be satisfactorily rewarded.
I think that in every Price Review the point of increasing efficiency in farming has been overstressed and used against the farmer. It should not be incumbent upon him always to absorb his annual rising costs in his efficiency results. Other industries seem to tack rising costs upon the price of their commodities, but under the present system of the disposal and sale of his products the farmer is unable to do this. He is at the mercy of the whims or pockets of his buyers, and under present conditions, so far as his main products are concerned, he receives no
1056
stability advantages, owing to the fluctuation of prices and working of the price deficiency operations.
From the point of view of Norfolk and Suffolk arable farmers, I am sorry to see a reduction in the guaranteed prices of wheat and barley. Market prices for these products fluctuate according to the period of sale, and the lowering of the guaranteed price may depreciate the market price with no saving of additional payment by the Exchequer. Market price paid to the grower for a year's labour and other production costs, and weather uncertainties, are low enough, in all conscience. If, for the sake of comparison, we take an average price (excluding the subsidy to the farmer) of around £20 per ton for barley, wheat and oats, here is an example of processing and wholesale and retail distribution profits which may surprise some noble Lords.
No doubt, like most Members of your Lordships' House, I buy dog biscuits in small quantities. The biscuits I buy cost 1s. 2d. a lb., equivalent to £130 a ton. They are composed, no doubt, of coarse grains (from where obtained I do not know) without any guarantee as to the nature of the ingredients or the quality. There is another bone-shaped biscuit, which no doubt your Lordships know, which costs 1s. 3d. a lb., equivalent to £140 a ton. Neither biscuit appears to he difficult of manufacture. But here is the picture: £20 a ton, excluding the subsidy, for the basic product to the farmer; and at the rate of £130 or £140 a ton to the consumer for his dog—a 600 per cent. increase on initial costs swallowed up in costs and profits between. Who now dares to say that the remuneration to the producer of the basic raw material is equitable or sufficient? Cereal growing should be more rewarding, and I hope that the newly-appointed Committee will take due note. I could give other astounding examples of biscuits for human or animal consumption, and other commodities with bases composed of farmers' primary products, some of which would no doubt astound your Lordships.
I do not want to deal more specifically with other prices fixed by the Price Review, except to say that I think the increase in sugar beet payment does not cover additional costs of production and harvesting. It must be remembered that

1057
a year or two ago the price was reduced, but nobody seemed to know a satisfactory explanation; and, having suffered that decrease, the price does not seem to have recovered by subsequent additions.
In a few words, I wish to put forward a proposal in regard to the continuation or otherwise of the Annual Review. Year by year we have these upsets and unsatisfactory wrangles between the Government and the agricultural industry. They do not make for friendly relationships between the parties concerned, and they are detrimental to the interests of those whose job in life it is to produce highgrade, home-grown products for national consumption. The Price Review seems to have worn out its welcome. Will the Government realise this fact and, in conjunction with the leaders of the industry, or by means of an appointed knowledgeable committee, thresh out some new system of control on at least a five-year plan which will be acceptable and beneficial alike to the consumer, producer and the nation at large? In the background, in spite of the petty sniping which is now taking place, I believe that there must be some good will between the Parties. Control in certain commodities produced, or in other respects connected with agriculture, is already an accepted and acceptable operation. Grants, loans and suchlike seem to be outside the scope of a Price Review and to be administered in a more peaceful and satisfactory atmosphere.
5.4 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:My Lords, I rise to make only a short intervention in this debate, and before making my speech I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on his extremely interesting maiden speech. I think there is no one in this country who speaks with longer association with and more authority on agriculture than does the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. I well remember before the war that he used to make contributions to farming journals and a variety of important newspapers on farming when farming was then absolutely the Cinderella of all industries. He has always been a faithful supporter of the farming industry, and I hope very much that we shall often hear him speak in that capacity. He certainly gave us a most interesting speech to-day, and I
1058
should like to add my congratulations to him from these Benches.
Your Lordships have been most kind in listening to me twice quite recently, speaking on other topics, more particularly speaking as Chairman of the Consumer Council. I do not speak in that capacity to-day; I speak quite unreservedly as a farmer. I declare my interest in the industry and I declare that I am on this occasion, as on many other occasions, speaking first and foremost as a farmer. I am the kind of farmer to whom the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, paid some compliments just now, in that I am a hill farmer. I am someone who produces the store cattle and sheep to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in his interesting speech referred, and he gave very startling and important figures, showing how important that particular section of agriculture is in the total picture.
I think that almost all Ministers from either Party open their Price Review by stressing the importance of agriculture in the economy of the country, and this Price Review is no exception. It says in the very first paragraph:
"The Government will … be considering … what contribution agriculture can best make to national economic growth."
That is something which warms the cockles of the heart of all farmers and farm workers who are in partnership in this great industry, and I should like to hear that the best use is going to be made of our efforts to help national economic growth. But each Minister of Agriculture—and I think probably a Minister of Agriculture in a Labour Government is worse off than other Ministers in this respect—looks round the rows of M.P.s who surround him, representing in the big majority towns and cities with hundreds of voters who are interested only in manufacturing industry, heavy and light industry, living in serried rows of houses in urban conditions, with not the slightest knowledge of or interest in the countryside or agricultural production, seeing only as much of the country as can be seen when driving as fast as possible along roads as near as possible constructed like racing tracks, to visit some other town.
This is not the fault of the Minister of Agriculture; it is the make-up of the country and of the population of these

1059
islands: 93 per cent. of the people five in towns and cities and earn their living in urban conditions. It requires a Minister of great courage to stand up to his colleagues and fight for the farmer, for the farm worker and for the industry, and he is probably fighting a fairly lone battle. I am sorry for the present Minister because I believe him to be an able and courageous man with the interests of agriculture at heart, but he is not strong enough to withstand the pressure of the urban population.
Yet I believe this to be shortsighted, because the contribution that home-grown food can make to our economy and to the balance of payments is very great. What we farmers would like to know is, how great do the financiers and the Treasury officials want this contribution to be? What is the proportion of home-grown as against imported food which would be in the interests of everyone? That is the question we have been asking and to which we want an answer. It is a pity that we cannot get an answer, because agriculture, unlike any other industry, can increase its capacity only slowly, and can also decrease its various products only slowly, because production on any significant scale in agriculture takes three years or more. It takes three years or more to increase the production of beef or mutton.
If you want to increase textile production or motor-car production you could probably do it in a few months by stepping up the hours at which you run the machinery which is used in that production, or by using other mechanical methods. In farming, particularly in livestock farming, mechanical timetables just do not work. And I would point out that if it is decided, as it seems to be by the way the dairy farmers are being treated, that there is a surplus of milk, and the Minister wants to put more dairymen out of business, this situation cannot be altered from one year to another.
The dairy industry will go out unless it can be made to pay. I am not a dairyman. Noble Lords here know much more about the industry than I do, but I do know something about the difficulties of milk production. If you really want to keep the small farmer in the industry—and I stress this point because there has been great talk about small
1060
farmers, and many of them are in the dairy industry with between 30 and 50 cows—then that man must have a reasonable return for his milk.
I have seen dairymen in Lanarkshire in West Scotland who have done everything to modernise their plant. That has meant putting a lot of capital into their farms. It has meant investing in the newest kind of milking-parlours—magnificent they are, but very expensive. They have to buy bulk tanks for their milk instead of using the old-fashioned methods. They have done everything to try to make their farming as economic and efficient as possible, and they are going to find it very hard to carry on at the present time. I have never understood how it is that the British public is prepared to give their children pocket money to spend on ginger beer or lemonade at 1s. 1d. a bottle, which I think costs much less to produce than that, and yet expects the farmer to sell a pint of the most nourishing food in the world for children, namely, fresh milk, at no more than 9d. a pint. Somehow we have got our values wrong.
As I say, I am not a dairy farmer. I am a livestock rearing and hill farmer, and, as has already been said, we in that section have had a more generous deal in this Price Review than some other branches of the industry; and as a livestock farmer I am grateful for it. We have many hazards which do not affect people in other branches of the industry. The vagaries of the weather, for instance, are sometimes an absolutely impossible handicap. Ills that breeding animals fall heir to are also very difficult. And these factors can make a difference between a profit and a loss irrespective of what any farming Review may give us. It took us in the Borders, where I farm, three years to recover from the great storm of 1961–2. So we are grateful for the help that we are getting in this Price Review.
Nevertheless, the real price that governs the farm is the end price, the price fixed by the Government for beef and mutton to the butcher. In the case of mutton this has remained the same since 1957. Can you think of a nationalised industry which has allowed its end product—let us say, electricity or gas or coal—to remain at the same price for eight years, while wages and costs have risen three times during that period? Never in this

1061
world! We all know—we are all buyers of gas and electricity and coal—that the price to-day is very different from what it was in 1957.
In addition, the cost of everything the farmer uses—electricity, diesel oil, petrol, tractors and machinery of all kinds—has doubled and trebled. The price in the store market—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, quite rightly, that the great production from the hills goes through the store market and is bought by the farmers who fatten it in the good land—has very often gone down. The draft ewe fell considerably in 1962 and 1963 and the price of wool did not recoup any of those losses. Prices for certain classes of lambs have gone down quite considerably in the last years, and with all the good will in the world it is not possible to show a profit when the product is held at the same price as in 1957.
With regard to efficiency, here, again, both sides of the House have spoken about this, and it is accepted that the industry has to recover every year 25 per cent. efficiency. This has been pressed on us to some effect, because I think that in almost all the years in which we have had Price Reviews, efficiency has been noted. I have here, as have many noble Lords, a great many figures, but I will not weary the House with them. The noble Lord, Lord Hushes, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, have all the figures to prove that the efficiency of the agricultural industry is something we can be proud of. Even the first Secretary of State, Mr. George Brown, has acknowledged this. Year after year efficiency has cut production costs in the industry.
But stock rearing cannot be altered or made more efficient by buying machinery or by putting shepherds off the hills. Indeed, putting shepherds off the hills often leads to a decrease in production and efficiency, since in this particular type of industry one man cannot do the work of two men on the hills, whereas one man and extra machinery can often do two men's work on arable ground. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, told us of the way in which efficient dairying can be done by two men with an additional milker, something which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, when he refers to his dairying in early days with hand milking, would look upon as nothing short of miraculous. But that
1062
cannot happen in the great hill areas of the country where store sheep and store cattle are produced. You cannot, by taking a man off, increase the efficiency. You must keep your staff—that is the only way you can really increase the production on the hills. And, as we all know, there is no method of meeting the additional costs of manpower except by getting a bigger return from your product.
Under the present Review the hill farmers are getting more assistance, but the marginal farm—I also have a farm which comes under that category—which carries stock is not getting the same amount of help. Yet that type of farm is the farm that buys the best store stock and fattens the store stock. The marginal farmer's costs are not being helped. His efficiency cannot absorb any more costs, and one wonders how long he is going on fighting a losing battle.
During this debate there has been great talk of the beef shortage to-day. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, told us of what is happening in Australia and the Argentine. Obviously beef is in short supply and is likely to remain so. Hill men are putting more and more cattle on the hill farms, urged to do so, rightly, by the present situation. But we say to ourselves, "Will the price hold, and in three years' time will the increase be supported, or will some Minister, or—worse—a Treasury gentleman, come along and say, No, you must buy from the Argentine or Yugoslavia or a Commonwealth country'?" If he does, we shall be landed with a huge increase—I hope a big increase—of beef, but we shall not have the remunerative market in which to sell it. Because of this, a long-term policy (and it is a longterm policy) is badly needed. This is why we want to know what part agriculture is to play in the economic growth of the country. This is where the end price of the product governs the amount of production and whether it is economic to invest in it.
The winter keep scheme is a good one. Some of the farmers left out of it are hard put to it, but those who get the grant—and I am one—are grateful for it. It is one of the ways in which the Government can help with rising costs, as it can be increased or decreased with a stroke of a pen. The stroke of a pen is one of the dangers of Price

1063
Reviews, of Treasury pressure and of the dominance of urban interests. A farmer's livelihood can be altered with a stroke of a pen, but his production cannot be altered under three or five years. He is subject to the laws of nature and it takes years to increase his crop, whatever it may be. So I would beg the Government—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is quite friendlily disposed towards this—to decide now, in the light of the importance of agriculture, both as a way of life and as an economic proposition, a longterm policy for the industry.
It has been said that the present Minister, Mr. Peart, said before the Election that a long-term policy was needed. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also said that in his speech to-day. I make this bold demand of the Government: let us have their long-term policy. Let us be sure that those of us who are putting more and more time, money and energy into this great industry are doing something not only in our own interests—because we do not want to be selfish about this—but in the interests of the economy and economic expansion of the country. If the Government do that, I cannot think of any industry which will respond more wholeheartedly than the industry of agriculture.
5.22 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I think I should first thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for introducing this debate, which gives us an opportunity of ranging over a wide field. I am also deeply conscious of the fact that this is my first speech to your Lordships' House and I hope to be non-controversial. Therefore, I will keep away from the subject which has caused most controversy, both inside this House and outside; that is, the question of milk prices. I make no comment on that, although I have views of my own. But I must say that, to my mind, concentration on the precise details of the Price Review in terms of prices, particularly in regard to milk, and the controversy which is raging between the farmers and the Government as to whether this is or is not a fair Review, cloud some of the major issues which we should be talking about in this House and which are in fact dealt with in the Review.
1064
May I remind your Lordships that we have good reason to be proud of the record which agriculture has achieved? I speak as one representative of agriculture and as one who has pride in it. The figures I am going to give are probably well known to your Lordships. It is a fact, however, that slightly less than 4 per cent. of our working population provide just over 4 per cent. of this nation's gross national product. This is a remarkable achievement, and it should not be forgotten either that the product of the agricultural industry is the most essential product of all. Food is the one essential fuel without which there can be no other type of production.
I believe it is not necessary to remind your Lordships of the problem which this country faces in terms of our balance-of-trade difficulties. The value of our agricultural product is in the region of £1,800 million per year. This represents about half the food we consume, and in the face of the balance-of-trade situation that I have mentioned it would be impossible to conceive of allowing agriculture to decline in its productive capacity. This is unthinkable as things are to-day. The opening sentence of the White Paper says:
"Agriculture is one of our biggest industries, and, as such, must take its proper place in the national economic development plan which is now being prepared."
I think that agriculture has in fact played its part in that plan, but I also believe in planning as such. I think overall planning in our economy is a good thing, and that is why I and my colleagues have supported the National Economic Development Council; but as an agriculturist I have been a little uneasy because there has been no direct representative of agriculture on that body.
Agriculture is the largest single industry, and therefore I personally am delighted to learn that a small "Neddy" is going to be set up to cover agriculture. I am quite sure we shall find that there is a precise need to ensure that British agriculture continues to play its part in supporting the national economy. What we have done, I think, redounds to everybody's credit. The White Paper explains that the Index of net output stands at

1065
137 to-day as against 100 for 1954–55–1956–57. This is a remarkable achievement. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said—and if it is proper for one maiden speaker to congratulate another, may I do so?—compared with pre-war there was an increase of 108 per cent.
May I now say a word for the agricultural worker? The productivity per man in our industry has increased at a tremendous rate over the years. In fewer than ten years the productivity per man in agriculture has increased by 80 per cent. That will bear comparison with the increase in any other industry, as will the increase of productivity in agriculture as a whole. Of course I know that much of this has been brought about by the proper development of management techniques, and one must give credit for this. It is also due, however, to the capability and the willingness of the worker to adapt himself to new processes. As one who worked in agriculture when it had no factories, may I say that I recognise the enormous revolution which has taken place in a very short time. Everybody has played up and done his job and deserves the credit which this country should give him.
I know, too, that the effect of mechanisation and the development of new techniques has been to enable the industry to reduce its manpower. In fact 300,000 workpeople have left our industry since the war, and they are still going at the rate of 20,000 per year. This has been a painless procedure because the nation as a whole is running through a period of full employment and therefore workers have been able to change their jobs without suffering the disadvantages of being redundant or unemployed. Of course, it is quite right and proper because it denotes efficiency within an industry, but I want to utter a word of warning to your Lordships because, desirable as this situation has been in the past, and although today there are pockets of shortage of labour in the country, there has to be some end to this situation. We have introduced into our industry a large number of machines. When one realises the acreage covered by one tractor and what it can do, I think there is some case ito be made for a consideration of whether the industry is not to some extent overcapitalised. It is clear to me that, if
1066
agriculture is to continue to do its job for the nation, we have to give consideration to the needs of agriculture over a pretty wide field. We must be assured that we can obtain, and retain, the type of men required for the agricultural industry.
If one examines the age structure of the agricultural labour force one finds that, as compared with industry generally, agriculture has an unduly high proportion of the very young and the very old. This is partly brought about by the fact that we are fortunate in the sense of having a good share of school leavers coming into the industry, and partly because our greatest loss of labour occurs between the ages of 25 and 44. This is a serious matter for the future. Unless the trend is altered we shall find ourselves with a labour force which has too few experienced men in their prime, too many inexperienced youngsters, and perhaps far too many men past their prime.
It is also economic folly to allow this trend to continue. By the time a man reaches 25 a great deal of time and money will have been spent on his training. If he goes out of agriculture, it is a tragedy. So many men leave our industry—an industry in which they are doing a job, perhaps two or three jobs, for which they have been highly trained and for which they are highly skilled—to go off into some other industry where they are putting a nut on a bolt or sweeping the floor. This is a complete loss of the money spent on the man's training. It is folly that we should let this continue to happen, and we must do something about it. And, furthermore, if a man leaves the industry we must realise that he has left it for good.
There is another aspect of this problem of the movement away from the land which vitally affects the future of our farming. I hope that this is not controversial, for I am speaking objectively. In the post-war years the vast majority of those who have left agriculture—I am not grumbling about this—have been employed persons and not employers. The position has already been reached where half of our farms employ no labour at all and three-fifths employ no regular whole-time workers, and only 6 per cent. employ more than four workers. Yet these workers account for half of all the regular men on our farms, and about

1067
half the production. All the evidence points to the fact that in the immediate and foreseeable future there will be a further decline in the total manpower in the industry. So far as it is right that this should be so, we do not object: we recognise that this is the result of greater efficiency being applied.
Something must be done about the problem of the small, non-viable farms. In this regard the White Paper, which your Lordships have been discussing largely in another direction, has shown that the Minister has displayed considerable courage in this matter. In paragraph 6 he outlines the problem. He points out that
"Most of the output of the industry is produced by about a quarter of our 450,000 agricultural holdings. These holdings are, for the most part, those which, because they have taken advantage of technological progress, and because they have secured economies of scale through the size of their farm businesses, can be expected to have low costs of production."
Then the Minister says:
"On the other hand, half of our holdings produce only a very small part of the industry's output. These for the most part consist of small acreages of land which cannot provide their occupiers with a full-time livelihood at prices which could be considered consistent with an efficient agriculture."
That is not a statement arising from prejudice, but a statement of fact reached through an objective study of the position.
The Government indicate in the White Paper that they recognise that this is a question of policy which has to be solved. I recognise, as do your Lordships, that this is a problem which it takes some courage to tackle. This is a nettle or thorn which has to be grasped, and is now being grasped. The Government are helping the small farmer to become more efficient. I, for one, heartily approve of the scheme to enable the National Agriculture Advisory Service to help with record-keeping. This is vitally important.
In other ways the Report outlines what the Government are proposing to do. In paragraph 12 we see the following words:
"But although by these measures it is hoped that many will be encouraged to strengthen and improve their individual enterprises, there will be others who can never hope, even with this help, to secure a proper
1068
remuneration from agriculture alone. These are mostly those who have farm businesses which from their size and nature cannot yield a reasonable livelihood on the basis of prices consistent with a stable and efficient industry."
The Government consider that something should be done, and arrangements for amalgamation are suggested. This is a proper thing to suggest. They suggest that much can be done by the development of co-operation and by cooperative marketing and the improvement of marketing techniques overall. Facing up to this prime problem, which has affected our industry for years, denotes much courage.
May I conclude on a more sectional note, again I hope being objective? I have said that we need in our industry assurance of the continuation of an intake of suitable people and that we must retain the people we have. This involves the acceptance of the fact that agriculture needs to build up its training programme and offer a good many more training facilities. We have in the industry an apprenticeship scheme, which rather falters. I am sorry about this, for I am one of those who sponsor it. We need, above all, the establishment of a training board for our industry, as boards are being established for other industries. I am delighted to know that it is now a fact that the National Farmers' Union and ourselves are asking the Minister of Labour for such a board. This will do more to co-ordinate training from the point of view of the skilled workman, the technician and the manager, and it will fill a crying need which it has long been our wish to see filled.
Agriculture must provide for people who go into it, on either side, the same kind of opportunity for advancement as any other industry does. Most of our people who leave agriculture do so because they can earn more money elsewhere for doing a less skilled job. This is a highly dangerous and highly damaging situation. Agriculture must be able to ensure that a young man who goes into the industry from school, after training, sees in it some prospect of advancement, in the same way as he would see prospects before him in engineering, electricity, banking, insurance and all the other kinds of trade which are considered to have professional stature. Agriculture is a highly professional industry, though

1069
many people do not yet realise it. I am sure that the things which I have put forward must happen. I thank the House for listening to my first speech. Your Lordships have been very kind, and I am most grateful.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I must first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Collison, on his very interesting speech. I feel sure that we should all have expected any speech from him to be interesting; and we were not disappointed. He is, indeed, an expert on the subject on which he has been addressing us, and I feel that we shall all look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
As a dairy farmer I have long been puzzled at the special treatment which the price of milk receives. Other commodities or products—let us take, for instance, bread—receive very different consideration. When it is shown that the cost of producing bread has gone up, the price to the consumer is raised without question. When it is shown that the cost of producing milk has gone up, the Government step in and prevent the price from going up in reimbursement, or allow it to rise only a fraction. What is the difference in this connection between bread and milk? Both are equally necessary in the diet of the people. It would be informative to know the reason for this differentiation.
Regarding the retail price of milk, the position is that in 1938 it took an adult male industrial worker 11¾ minutes to earn the price of a pint of milk. In 1963 it took the same worker precisely 6 minutes to earn the price of a pint of milk. This clearly shows the advantage which the wage-earner has obtained over the producer. It is interesting to compare the actual index of retail prices, taking 1938 as 100 and comparing it with 1963, which I am afraid is the latest year for which I have figures. The cost of milk in that period has risen to 247; the general level of retail prices has risen in the same period to 304; the weekly wage rates in the same period have risen to 353. What I should like to know is: Why is milk singled out for such special treatment?
Then there is a clear difference between the way milk distributors and milk pro-
1070
ducers are treated. Recently, the distributors introduced a five-day week for roundsmen, which came into effect from November 1. Their retail margin was increased from December 1 to cover the cost of this change. Could dairy farmers expect that, if they were able to introduce a five-day week for their workers, they would get an immediate reimbursement in terms of the price of their product?
In ten years the agricultural industry as a whole has absorbed £155 million in costs. The White Paper makes no mention of the fact that agriculture is one of the great import savers. The industry is expected to increase productivity without increasing output, and this is almost physically impossible. In other words, the industry is in a strait-jacket of standard quantities; and particularly is this the case with milk. At the present time more milk is imported, in the form of milk products, than the total production of milk in the United Kingdom. The question is, why is the Minister so concerned to limit milk production when one considers the enormous savings which could be obtained if production were increased?
It seems that for milk producers there is no reward for efficiency, and the Government appear prepared to accept with complacency the continual rundown in the numbers of dairy farmers. Producers have been leaving the industry at an ever-increasing rate. Over 5,000 producers left last year. This year, I am told, the number of producers in England and Wales will be lower than when the Milk Marketing Board was formed in 1933. It is well known that the increased size of herds has done much to compensate for the reduction in their numbers, but I venture to say that this balance between the two tendencies will cease. Just how many more will leave milk production in the months that lie ahead is a matter for conjecture. It is almost certain, that the Government's decisions on milk prices will accelerate the steady stream of small farmers out of milk production, which, with its relentless pattern of twice-a-day milking, seven days a week, offers no attraction to the younger generation brought up in a Britain of a five-day week. I have heard it seriously suggested that, owing

1071
to the number of farmers going out of milk production, within two years there will be an acute shortage of milk. Be that as it may, I hope that I have said enough to show that the situation as regards the production and supply of milk is very serious, and fully deserves reconsideration.
5.45 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, may I start by offering my congratulations to the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon? They are both great and acknowledged experts in their subject, and I am sure that we shall always benefit from what they have to tell us. There are many other noble Lords who wish to take part in this debate, and the hours are passing, so your Lordships will no doubt be pleased to hear that I propose to delete a considerable part of what I was going to say.
I want, if I may, to talk about the difficulties of forecasting future trends in agriculture. It is always a hazardous enterprise. There is no better example in recent years than milk and milk products. In the early 1960s, there were fears of serious over-production and of a heavy burden of milk that could be used only for manufacturing purposes. Then came the 1962–63 severe winter, which affected dairy production not only in this country but in most of Europe as well, and the effects appeared to continue well into 1964. This year there would seem to be no likelihood of a shortage of milk products in Europe.
So far as butter is concerned in this country, present stocks of over 60,000 tons are nearly double those of a year ago. So it is possible to argue that a large increase in the price award to milk producers could lead within a couple of years to another period of over-production. We should never, in my opinion, lose sight of the fact that the main task of our dairy industry should be to supply the country with its liquid milk requirements. As I said a year ago in your Lordships' debate on Agriculture, the true cost to the nation of English butter is double the cost of production of New Zealand butter.
Beef, of course, presents another example of the difficulties of predicting future supplies. Your Lordships will
1072
recall that in 1963 we in this House were bemoaning the low prices and the heavy cost of the deficiency payments. The then Conservative Minister of Agriculture addressed letters to the Argentine and Yugoslavian Governments, asking them to exercise restraint in their exports to this market. As a result, they sought other outlets, and there has subsequently been a large increase in the Argentine exports to Europe and in the Yugoslav exports to Italy. That request for restraint was made in 1963. How different the situation looks to-day, exactly two years later, when those concerned with the cost of living are bemoaning the high price of meat, and when the Treasury, concerned with national expenditure, welcomes the drop in subsidies!
Therefore, on the basis of the present situation, the increase of 4s. per live cwt. in the guaranteed price of fat cattle, and the extension and increase in the calf subsidy rate, are obviously warranted. Naturally, the farmers would have liked more. But even to-day those who believe in the price cycle are predicting that, within three or four years, the meat supply and price level may be entirely different. Against that, there are those who believe that, with rising standards of living in those countries which were not in the past big consumers of meat, we shall have a continuation of high meat prices. Which school of thought is going to be proved right? Professor McGregor Cooper, Dean of Agriculture at the University of Newcastle, recently made an interesting contribution to the discussion of the issue. He stated that if the 600,000 calves which are slaughtered each year soon after birth were raised for beef, it would add 150,000 tons, or about 17 per cent., to the nation's home-killed beef supplies. If one disregards quality considerations, he has made, in my opinion, a valid point. The extension of the calf subsidy will go some way towards the retention of calves for beef.
In respect of eggs, the Review, stressing the risk of over-production in the future, reduces the guaranteed price, as your Lordships know, by 1d. per dozen. Home production of eggs has more than doubled since 1938. Egg consumption, however, has increased by only about 20 per cent. during the same period, and there does not seem to be much scope for a further substantial rise. This

1073
country is already one of the largest egg-eating countries of the world, with an average consumption of nearly 5 eggs per person per week. In America, the comparative figure is 5·6 a week; and what is interesting is that the American consumption is going down as a result of the rapid spread of what are known as "convenience foods". In my view, we may reach a point in the near future when the well over £1 million spent by the Egg Marketing Board on advertising will no longer be able to increase consumption, but may be necessary to maintain it.
The great unknown in connection with eggs is the future of the vertically-integrated factory farm, which has its own hatchery, compounds its own feed and has its own egg-packing station. If this type of operation is efficient in terms of cost, surely we should not, in the national interest, either discourage or oppose it. Equally, in my opinion, we must not automatically assume its success. Not only are there the problems of efficient management involved, but, inevitably, with intensive production, the risk of infection and disease. Therefore, like so much in connection with agriculture, prophecy in regard to eggs is dangerous: but the position should be closely watched.
Finally, I would say that, in my opinion, one of the most encouraging aspects since the end of the war has been the growth of agricultural and horticultural co-operation. It is now on a larger scale than it has ever been before in Britain, and in my view it has an ever-increasing roôle to play, in both marketing and production. The Government, in the White Paper, fully recognise this fact.
5.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I declare my interest as a hill and vale farmer, small in both cases; and, as regards whatever afflictions have been placed upon me by the Price Review, I am quite satisfied with all that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and I should like to deal with the broader aspects. I take the view that during the past eighteen years agriculture has been raised in this country, after a century of squalor, to the status of a first-class, prospering industry. That is due, in so far as legislation is concerned, to
1074
the activities of both the Parties, starting with the Agriculture Act, 1947, which guaranteed prices and assured markets, and even ended with the words, "an adequate return on capital invested in the industry". I look upon this Act as the Magna Charta of modern agriculture; its absolute foundation. It came at a time when we were expecting a slice of "Clause 4", and I think we have always been grateful that that Act was passed at that particular time. It is so comprehensive, and is still the foundation of our prosperity.
Secondly, there was the Act of 1948, the Agricultural Holdings Act. I noted Section 24(2)(c), which gives security to the tenant farmer. I am a tenant now, and I like being secure, although I am in no particular danger. Indeed, I do not think that, when I was a landlord, my tenants were in any particular danger, but I have sat on agricultural land tribunals and have seen some attempts to victimise which, because of this Act, we have been able to frustrate. Then came an Act introduced by the Conservative Government, the Agriculture Act, 1957, which dealt with farms of any size and brought in the Farm Improvement Scheme. That was a great advance, because it was not selective. It was not confined to the poor, to the small or to those who live on the hills, like myself, but was available to all. That is another important Act.
The last that I picked out of the major Acts is that of 1958 which I think only a Conservative Government would have passed as well. It is the establishment of rents on an economic basis—the willing landlord-willing tenant relationship. Since then I think that my rent for the same farm as a tenant is now twice what it was when I was the landlord, but that is fair. I have been a landlord and I am a builder, and I know what it costs to modernise, and how you have to wait for many years before you can take up these pound-for-pound improvement schemes in order to rectify the past—18th century buildings, 18th century houses; and even older. So, by and large, I think the farming community are grateful to both Parties, and in particular to those principally responsible for the Act of 1947.
But, like so many "Magna Chartas", the 1947 Act had a flaw: it established

1075
a system of protection which was novel, and inconvenient for a farmer. The protection of industry is generally achieved by the taxing of imports so as to raise the price to the consumer. It is a protection of producers, and it has the advantage that on goods coming into the country a revenue is paid to the Treasury. It is the kind of protection that is pleasing to the Treasury and does not worry those who are making up the Budget. It produces tax revenue; it is almost unnoticed. With the farmers, it is so arranged that, in order to protect the consumer from high prices (and that was the original intention, because at the time prices abroad were higher), there was devised the system of deficiency payments. These must be voted positively annually, given out of Treasury resources and allowed for in the Budget. Therefore, the farmers, of all the producers in this country, are annual mendicants at the Treasury door. I could not wish for my worst enemy a continued and everlasting situation as unhappy as that. My experience is that whenever things are difficult the Treasury always wins.
There is another factor which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned. I found that the figures which I had proposed to quote, and which were obtained from the National Farmers' Union, are almost exactly those that he quoted on that particular subject. This factor is the relationship between the progress of real incomes and the progress of output. From the end of the war up to 1952 there was parity on the agricultural front between these two. Then from 1953 to 1963, a period of ten years, there was a substantial discrepancy. The community income was rising faster than the community increase in output. But in the matter of agriculture the increased income was only half the increased output—and the increased output was very great indeed.
Therefore, I find myself in agreement with the argument produced by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to the effect that this has been a running grievance. That it should have exploded at the present time is accidental; it might well have exploded at any time. Because it is a continuing grievance, I wonder whether there is any possibility that both Parties may engage in a declaration of intent that the incomes of the farming com-
1076
munity—all of them, the whole agricultural community—shall move up (as is the target of the Treaty of Rome) until they reach parity with the incomes of the rest of the community. I should like to ask whether that would be accepted as a target.
When I compare the records of both Parties, I cannot help feeling that my fellow-farmers are needlessly angry at this moment. We have a genuine grievance against all those who have managed our affairs, in that they are not advancing us to the level of the rest of the community fast enough. We are still lagging behind. Nevertheless, I think it is a mistake to be in too much of a hurry to bite the hand of those who established the foundation in 1947 and 1948, because I do not think the record of the other side is anything to inspire us with greater confidence.
I should like, in conclusion, to make another suggestion. One I have already made, the suggestion of the declaration of intent. But I should also like to put forward something which I think has been suggested in a different way by a number of speakers; namely that there should be some independent outside body in the nature of what I had first thought of as an agricultural prices board. But it seems to me that something more is necessary because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, reminded us, there is this difficult question of saturation and determination of quantities; and we want something which produces greater stability and considers these factors, as well as prices, so that we are not given a jolt every Lent in this unexpected way. I believe that the principles which help to determine price support should be given as a guide to this independent body, or whatever it may be.
I appreciate that at the present time we are in the hands of the Treasury—though I wish we were not—and that to produce unnecessary agitation six days before a most important Budget which may have the effect of saving or losing the pound is most imprudent. I hope that if anything I say reaches my fellow-farmers they will ease up and get less hot, bearing in mind that we have advanced immensely in these last eighteen years; but from neither Government have we obtained that process of catching-up to which we all look forward.
6.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest, in that I farm in the Highlands and in South-East England. I shall confine myself—although this Motion is drawn very widely—to a criticism of the Review. I dislike the Price Review for two reasons: first, because it is unfair to the agricultural community; and, secondly, because I consider it a completely outdated theory that the United Kingdom should be a large importer of food. I should have preferred it if the Review had given every encouragement to maximum food production, within, naturally, reasonable costs. But in fact, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out, the present Prime Minister said at Swansea, in 1964—and he was quite right—that to support our industries in this country that can produce goods which we import is just as important as exporting. That, of course, is common sense.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out, we import into this country £1,000 million worth of temperate foodstuffs every year. We are told that we probably have an overseas trade deficit of from £700 million to £800 million. I should have preferred that we had a high agriculture policy, for if we had had such a policy we could have helped the balance of payments quite considerably. Why have Her Majesty's Government discouraged the farmers from producing more food? It cannot be owing to our agreement with the EFTA countries, because we import very few temperate foodstuffs from EFTA, apart from Denmark. The majority of our temperate foodstuffs are imported from America, Canada and Australia. These countries, for the most part, are richer than we are and can well afford not to export food to us. I know that we have Agreements with them, but, as we have seen, the present Government threw overboard all Agreements when they imposed the 15 per cent. surcharge. Therefore, I think Her Majesty's Government ought to have taken a tougher line with Canada, Australia, Argentine and America. I have read the exchange of letters with these countries and I think the Government have not been tough enough.
Some time ago, we had a debate on world population, when several noble Lords and I pointed out that the popula-
1078
tion of the world is going to double by the end of the 20th century. The population of this country will also be about 80 million by then. I consider it immoral, faced with a situation like that, artificially to hold down food production. Even OXFAM are so worried about this, that they are going to support birth control. It may even change the view of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church on their most holy dogma. But it cannot change Mr. Peart. It leaves him completely cold.
The more I read this Review, the more I see that it is really unfair to farmers. Agriculture is our greatest industry, the most efficient industry in the country. It is no good the noble Lord opposite raising his eyebrows. Does he realise that one farm worker produces food enough for 23 townspeople? Our nearest competitor is Denmark, where one farm worker produces enough food for 17. In Germany, the ratio is 1 to 9; in France, 1 to 8, and in Italy, 1 to 7, down to Russia, which is the lowest with 1 to 4½. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the productivity of British farming far outstrips the manufacturing industries. It is double the productivity of any other industry. If British manufacturing industry had kept pace with the productivity of British farming, there would have been no balance-of-payments crises in the last ten years.
What is the farmers' return for this patriotic and efficient service? We have all seen in the daily papers how the N.F.U. have been advertising—it is the first time they have ever done so, but they have been driven to desperation—showing that whereas the average increase in incomes, in real terms, for the rest of the country over the last twelve years has been 56 per cent., the farmers' income has barely gone up by 1 per cent. Is that fair?
The Review raises the price guarantees by £10½ million, but costs are up £29 million. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that that would be all right, because there would be an increased efficiency of £25 million, which would mean £6 million on the right side. But we cannot bank on that. How would a nationalised industry like it if the Government told them that they could not have any more money for their deficit because they were going to have increased efficiency? I think we may have come to a saturation point of

1079
efficiency in agriculture, a point where the increase in efficiency will get smaller.
In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Collison, said that, compared to the industrial labourer, the farm labourer is underpaid. How are we going to correct that? The farmer cannot be expected to correct it, with a Review like this. In industry it is possible to have an automatic machine that can do the work of 100 people; but you cannot have a mechanical shepherd, so farming is up against a difficulty here. Farmers are always taken advantage of because they do not strike. They are the most patriotic community in the country. They work the land because they love the land. It would pay the owner-occupier farmer far better to sell his farm and invest the money in trustee securities. He would increase his income about 2½ times and would not have to do any work for it. But he is not that type of man.
We are told that every cloud has a silver lining, but I have found it extremely hard to find a silver lining in this Review. I think that the attitude of the Government is summed up in paragraph 15, which refers to the importance of reducing agriculture's dependence on Government financial support. That statement is very misleading to the public. The average member of the public does not understand that the manufacturing industries of this country are highly protected by import duties but the farmers have no protection at all against the importation of cheap food. To show the efficiency of British farmers, compare the price of German barley with the price of British barley. German barley is 37s. 8d. per cwt., whereas ours is 25s. 4d. per cwt.; and French barley is 30s. 5d. per cwt. I do not care what anybody says, farming has not had a square deal.
With regard to paragraph 43 of the White Paper, with regard to our agreements with our overseas buyers, when these agreements come to an end, as they will, I suggest that the Government ought to allow British agriculture to have the maximum output, and that, provided it is carried on within reasonable cost, it should not be rests icted at all. Overseas suppliers ought to take second place. This paragraph talks about their having a fair
1080
share of the home markets. Under the existing agreements, it may be that they must have some share of the home market, but I hope that in future they will take second place.
I should now like to turn for a short time to some of the more pleasing aspects of the White Paper, dreary though I must say I feel the document is as a whole. As a hill farmer, I welcome the flat rate of subsidy for ewes. In the past we have had a subsidy which has jumped between 5s. and 25s., according to the whim of the Government or the severity of the winter. But even if there is a severe winter, it is not so severe over the whole country. I therefore congratulate the Government on having this flat rate, which is far more satisfactory, because we know where we are and can plan accordingly.
I also congratulate the Government on the increase of £1 in the hill cow subsidy, and the raising of the calf subsidy by 10s. Even so, I do not think the hill cow subsidy is sufficient, because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, in the Highlands we have 12½ million acres of grazing, which represents two-thirds of the grazing in the whole country. The trouble with the majority of this grazing is that you can have cattle on it for four or five months of the year, but not in the winter time. During this period they have to be fed heavily, and it is impossible for hill farms to produce enough food. I have always thought—I have said so before in your Lordships' House—that if only the Government could devise (I agree it is not easy) some cheap transport system for straw and hay from the South to the Highlands, we could have three times the beef stock. I have at times had to pay £25 or £28 a ton for hay, and over one-third of it is the cost of transport.
The price of fat cattle is more satisfactory. We have this Id. per gallon on milk, and the dairy farmers all appear to be very disappointed—and they are probably right: I am not a dairy farmer myself, so I do not know. But if this ld. per gallon on milk does not prevent the dairy farmers from selling their herds (and in many cases I do not think it will) it will affect beef, too, because two-thirds of our beef calves come from dairy herds. The world's sources of beef are drying up, and I should have liked to see more

1081
encouragement given to the production of beef. We even have the opportunity of exporting beef and mutton to the Continent. I have exported lambs directly to Paris from the Western Highlands. There is a great market on the Continent for our meat. I am pleased to see the help given to the small farmer, because at present small farming is not really economic. The small farmers are a stalwart part of our community, and for social reasons I believe that they require all the help the Government can provide for them. The suggestion of Her Majesty's Government about grants for co-operative marketing will also be a help. In the livestock markets the small man can sometimes have a bad deal, whereas it is easier for the big farmer.
My Lords, I have tried to say something nice on the Review at the end of my speech, but on the whole I think it is a dismal document. I cannot get away from the feeling that the farmer has been offered up by the high priest, Mr. Peart, as a sacrifice on the altar of Socialist expediency. Free drugs, apparently, are more important than a strong agricultural economy. In this urban country, where we have heard that 93 per cent. of the population are urban dwellers, possibly this is only to be expected. Nevertheless, it is time that Her Majesty's Government really helped the farmers, because they have been very patient, and one day they may get very angry. They had high hopes of a Labour Government, and there have been a great many broken pledges. Although he probably did not want it to happen, I think that Mr. Pcart's hands are very red with blood from this sacrifice of the farmers and these broken pledges. On the whole, I deplore the Price Review.
6.32 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on his maiden speech, as he and I were Parliamentary colleagues for many years in another place. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Collison, whom I have known for many years as the Secretary of the Agricultural Workers' Association.
I witnessed yesterday morning and this morning a demonstration by the farmers of England. To see these poor people must have moved the Tory Party terribly.
1082
I am sorry to say that I was not deeply moved. I cannot get emotional at the poverty of people who sit behind the wheel in Bentley and Jaguar cars which I have seen outside this building in the last two days. I remember forcibly that only a few years ago the nurses demonstrated against the Conservative Party when they were awarded only 6d. in the pound; I remember the 2½ per cent. wages pause of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, when our civil servants could not get even the arbitration award to which they were entitled; I remember the Post Office strike to get even a little award; I remember the time of the demonstration of the 10s. widows, who got nothing; I remember the demonstrations of the unemployed, which we were told were Communist inspired. I do not know who inspired the demonstrations of the last two days, but it most certainly was not the Labour Party.
The National Farmers' Union and its members are fully entitled to demonstrate and claim whatever they think is justified, but I believe they are making a great mistake to-day in protestine, so violently about this year's Price Review. The public are now getting cynical about the farmers, and a general expression among the people in the large towns is that if you gave the farmers the national income they would still not be satisfied. I am afraid they are losing public sympathy which has been built up over many years. We never witnessed anything like the action the farmers are taking to-day because of the Price Review, when the Tory Government accepted conditions of the Six in Europe for entry into the Common Market.
To go into the Common Market the Tory Party were prepared to accept a total giveaway in agriculture. It would have destroyed the whole basis of the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts, which we on this side have always defended. The Tories would have abandoned to the Common Market the power to decide farmers' prices and incomes, and food prices for the British people. They also agreed that by 1970 the protection of the British farmer had to go. They agreed that British farm and food policy should be decided by a body abroad known as the Brussels Commission, under the Treaty of Rome, responsible to no one. Their decisions, once made—decisions of

1083
a Council of Ministers whose system of voting at that time was absolutely unknown—could not be upset by any elected Government, no matter how harmful they might be to the farmers.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is intending to be as entirely one-sided as he sounds. Of course, when he speaks of the abandonment of agriculture, this would not have been abandonment at all. Agriculture flourishes in the Common Market countries, and in point of fact it is not so much that the 1947 and 1957 Acts would have been done away with at cost to the farmers. We recognised that prices would have to rise, but there were also compensations for the consumer. The farmer would have benefited as well.
LORD BLYTON: My main point is this. I was the leader of the anti-Common Market body in the Labour Party, and I remember the National Farmers' Union fighting the Conservative Party as hard as we were fighting the conditions and prices that Mr. Heath accepted in the Common Market. No matter whether the farmers have blocked the road with their tractors, have poured their milk down the drains, have sent Ministers chickens, or have lobbied here in the last two days, if the conditions that the Conservative Party were going to accept for going into the Common Market had operated the farmers would have been helpless to-day in relation to Price Reviews which affect their cost of living.
It is rather remarkable that in those vitally crucial months, the farmers never organised any of the violent protests which we have seen this week. To the farmers—and I have fought for them all my life, although I am not a farmer but a consumer—I say now, "You had better keep your powder dry, because there is going to be an onslaught in the forthcoming months to get you into the Common Market, not by the Government, but by others. If you get in, then the whole basis of the 1947 and 1957 Acts will go, and your protection will go by 1970". I also say to the farmers, quite frankly, to-day, "Your present agitation is simply not justified by a calm look at the facts of this Review."
I believe that this Review is perfectly fair and compares favourably with those
1084
of previous years. There have been tougher settlements than this one by Tory Ministers, and some were even aimed at reducing farm incomes. But we never had anything like the fuss we are getting to-day. This Review entails an increase of nearly £10½ million in the agricultural guarantees. Admittedly farmers' costs for commodities coming within this Review have increased by £29 million, and they have been asked to absorb a large part of these increased costs. But this is no different from the position in any other industry, and it must not be forgotten that the agricultural industry is constantly improving its methods and raising its productivity. Even in 1960 the farmers agreed with the Government of the day to put the value of their increasing productivity at £25 million per annum. So this Review, on that basis, leaves the agricultural industry with £6 million of this increased productivity.
Some farmers are suggesting that the Government should have produced an award to cover all their increased costs. This would have meant that the agricultural industry would have turned into a cost plus industry. This must be unacceptable not only to the Government and to the Opposition, but also to the farmers themselves, who pride themselves on their progressive outlook and readiness to take up and apply new techniques and methods to reduce costs.
During the last thirteen years, excluding Election years—and one understands that—there have been five agreed Reviews and five disagreed Reviews. Five were more favourable to the farmers than this one, and five were less favourable. But there was nothing like the attack on the Tory Party in the five years the Reviews were less favourable as we have witnessed to-day on the present Review. When the previous speaker talked about the farmer getting only 1 per cent. of the nation's increased productivity, he must look to his own Front Bench, because for thirteen years they were in charge of the agricultural industry.
A great deal of criticism from the farmers has been against the Id. per gallon increase for milk, which has been described in many quarters as an insult. But it means £11 million a year more for dairy farmers. Is that an insult? In

1085
fact, it is the most generous award to the milk producers, excluding that of last year, which was Election year, since the present method of remuneration was fixed for dairy farmers in 1954. Over the last two years the price paid to dairy farmers has gone up by 10 per cent. Farm incomes rose by £63 million last year, and have been rising at an average of 5 per cent. for several years. There is nothing in this Review that will lead to a drop in farm incomes. In my opinion, quite the reverse.
The Farmers' Unions asked for 6d. per gallon on milk. That would have put on the housewife's bill for milk about £54 million. No reasonable Minister could do this—and we hope that the present Minister, while being fair to the farmer, will keep in mind the consumer's point of view. I know that the number of dairy farmers continues to decline, but the decline of dairy herds has been stopped. And the decline in milk production has been checked, and production is increasing. In every month of this winter milk production has been higher than it was in the same months of last year, and the Milk Marketing Board itself is forecasting some increase in production this year. In this context we must remember that we produce more milk than we drink, and nearly half as much again is left over. To talk of shortage of milk is, therefore, in my opinion, very wide of the mark. If the 6d. per gallon increase which the producers wanted had been granted, at a cost of £54 million to the housewife, it would have made milk so profitable and produced such a glut that it would probably have found itself down the drain.
Some say that it is not profitable to produce milk, yet there are many farmers who find it is. The 125,000 farmers still in milk have, in fact, been increasing the number of cows they keep. The Milk Marketing Board's figures show that the dairy farmer made, on average, nearly 8d. per gallon profit two years ago. Since then they have been getting 5d. per gallon more for their milk. Their costs cannot have increased to that extent, so, in my opinion, their profits must be much higher than the forecast riven here to-day. The retail price of milk is to go up by 4d. a gallon from August. Where does this 4d. a gallon go? It is 4d. a gallon for eight months of the year. For four months, 4d. a gallon is to go to the
1086
farmers to give them the £11 million they are awarded; but for the other four months it will go to the milk distributors Whose costs have risen sharply. Their biggest increase has been to give their men a five-day week, and I hope that this is not begrudged in your Lordships' House.
As I read the White Paper, it appears to me that this Review is the first step on the road to a long-term policy for British farming, a long-term policy that will enable British farming to take its rightful place in the national economic plan. A constructive policy for farming involves a lot more than year-to-year changes, up or down, in the guaranteed prices. It must tackle the underlying economic farming problems, and it is only in this way that we can get a more productive, efficient and prosperous countryside.
What are the problems? One of the biggest is the scale of enterprise in farming. I believe that there is a steady trend towards bigger units. If our small farms are to prosper, practical steps will have to be taken to increase their efficiency. This Review is to extend the scope of the Small Farmer Scheme and to help small farmers on management all we can. It proposes to improve credit facilities, which often keep back the small farmer and the young farmer, and to provide grants to help co-operative marketing, which will also help the small farmer. The Review also states that ways are to be found of encouraging the amalgamation of farms too small to give a decent living, and this is to be done voluntarily. It is essential but, like every other thing, it will take time.
A start is now made by changes in the Hill Cattle and Hill Sheep Subsidy Schemes, together with the Winter Keep Scheme, to try to maintain prosperity in the hill and upland areas. More will have to be done, but at least an attempt is being made in this Review to try to solve the basic problems in this field. It is pleasing also to note that the Minister is to tackle the marketing problems. He intends to set up a meat and livestock commission, because it is believed that real improvements are needed if farmers are to get the best returns and the consumer the best quality. I hope that this Commission does not get bogged down

1087
and that before long we shall have their recommendations before us.
There has been a moderate expansion in the home production of beef, and there, again, there is an increase in the guaranteed price of cattle. There is an extension and increase in the rate of the calf subsidy and the rate of the hill cow subsidy. The price increase on milk will also help here, since the dairy herd is the source of two-thirds of our beef. I believe that these measures are bound to give encouragement and hope to the farmers.
My Lords, why have cuts been made in the wheat and barley prices? As noble Lords know, cereal production is very profitable and the subsidy bill is very large. It was over £60 million in 1964–65, and the estimate made before this Review showed an even higher figure. Because production is so profitable, it has expanded far beyond the standard quantities and has reduced imports from our traditional suppliers—who are also our customers. The last Government, with the approval of the Farmers' Unions, entered into agreements with our overseas suppliers on minimum import prices, and under these agreements there is the clear obligation to maintain a fair and reasonable balance between home production and imports and to take effective remedial action if imports fall significantly. Imports are expected to fall below the target figure of 800,000 tons in the year 1964–65. We on this side always thought the principle of these agreements was right. The agreements are the basis for minimum import prices which have put a floor into our cereals market. So we are carrying out the promises which were made in the agreements by the last Government, and the farmers have no complaint at all on this particular score.
It is essential that farming policy also fits in with our national economic plan, and farming policy must not be regarded as simply a way of guaranteeing incomes to the farmers from the taxpayer. The policy of the Government must be to maintain a sound agriculture, producing what the country wants as efficiently as possible, and, on the other hand, farming must produce what the country needs. As the years go by these policies may have to be looked at and changed in
1088
the light of national needs. There are some people, as I have heard to-day, who say the Government have been tough on the farming community because of the nation's economic difficulties. As I have studied this review—and I spent many hours on it—I cannot understand the agitation, unless they are contrasting this Review with last year's, which was in an Election year and which was very generous.
As I have said, there have been other Reviews which bore more harshly on the farmers than this one does this year, and it will be a bad day if it is always argued that we are treating farmers badly if we do not increase their guarantees by the same amount as their costs are increasing. No Government worth its salt could accept a situation of that character, which would make this industry a cost-plus system. Other industries have to try to absorb some of their costs, and farming must be expected to do the same. And it is not as if farm incomes were low. The past year farm incomes increased by £63 million to an all time record. I want to see farming incomes rise with national prosperity, but this cannot be achieved just by increasing subsidies or putting prices up unreasonably.
This Review is the first step on the road of a long-term policy for British farming. It cannot be expected that all the pressing problems of British agriculture can be solved in six months, and that is why this Review makes so many references to future studies. The Review is constructive. It is fair to the farmers. It makes a real commencement on trying to solve the structural problems of British farming and in fitting the British farming community into its rightful place in our country. These measures are intended to strengthen those parts of the industry where support will be most beneficial and effective.
The Tories' record at Annual Reviews was unimpressive in the past, for they failed conspicuously over thirteen years to provide lasting solutions to many of the industry's problems. What they have failed to do in thirteen years they cannot expect us to do in six months. This Review at least lays down the foundation for the sound development of the industry. It will give proper remuneration to the industry as a whole. The

1089
heart of our approach should be to direct support where it is most needed for the maintenance of a stable and efficient industry, and a commencement has now been made by tackling the problems of those of our less well placed farmers who have a potential for progress.
If a lasting solution can be achieved then their productivity and remuneration will improve, and farming as a whole will become more competitive and better able to take advantage of future advances in technology and management techniques. These are the conditions we foresee under which the industry will be able to fulfil the objectives of the 1947 and 1957 Acts by reducing dependence on Government financial support. My Lords, I consider the Minister of Agriculture has been under severe, unjustified criticism. I fully support him in the Review he has presented. He has held a fair balance between the farmer and the consumer, and I wish him luck.
6.57 p.m.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, I should like to start by referring to a matter in which I think the Government is in a position to give greater help to agriculture than it has seemed willing to do to date. This is a matter that has nothing to do with financial support for the industry and will cost the Treasury nothing. It is about the Government's attitude to the use of good land. Our good farming land and our coalfields are about the only significant natural resources which our country possesses. They are sources of production of wealth, and surely for that reason it is of the utmost importance that they are not dissipated. But that is exactly what is happening the whole time. Every year we are losing about 35,000 acres of good food-producing land to other projects. Every fifteen years we are losing an acreage the size of the county of Worcestershire; and though the Government acknowledge the principle that good land must be preserved for food production, I fear it is only lip service which they pay to this principle.
I should like to illustrate the sort of thing that is happening from an example in the county in which I live myself. I refer to the proposal to build a new airport at Stansted in Essex and also to build a New Town near this airport, and, for good measure, to build a new motor-
1090
way to serve, among other places, the New Town and the airport. I know at the moment these are proposals only and not concrete plans; but that these suggestions can be made at all illustrates, I think, the blithely irresponsible attitude which some Government advisers have to the use of good food-producing land. I will not dispute that both the airport and the New Town may be necessary; but how can it be contemplated that they be sited on some of our best farm land, in what I would claim to be England's premier farming county? Surely it should be axiomatic for such land to be preserved for food production, and surely it should be axiomatic that other projects, whatever they are—aerodromes, defence establishments, reservoirs or anything else—should be sited on the poorer land which exists in every county and in every district.
I would have thought that, in the face of the Stansted proposals, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should get really tough. He should say to his colleagues in other Ministries "No, absolutely no. You are asking for thousands of acres of my two-ton-to-the-acre corn land, you are asking for hundreds of acres of my seven-ewe-to-the-acre grassland. This matter is simply not negotiable. My job is to preserve and not to liquidate the assets of the industry". I quote the Stansted proposals because I know at first hand what is going on there. I certainly have no personal interest in the matter, but I know as a member of the National Farmers' Union, of the Country Landowners' Association and also of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, that this sort of threat to food production is multiplying every year, every month, every day, in every part of the country, and I know that farmers are very greatly concerned about this situation. I implore Her Majesty's Government to preserve the assets of the farming industry and to plan the siting of all other projects on land which has little or no food-producing value. No industry can be expected to continue to flourish if its most important asset is eroded in the way good agricultural land is being eroded at the present time.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him for a moment? I sympathise

1091
very much indeed with what he is saying, but would he not agree that aerodromes must be built on flat land and that in nine cases out of ten flat land is the best farming land?
LORD ABINGER: No, I am afraid I strongly disagree with that. I know large areas of flat land in East Anglia which are very far from being good food-producing land. There are large areas of it, for instance, in Suffolk.
Having mentioned the injury to farming interests which is only too often being inflicted by the wrong use of land, I should like to mention the insult which sometimes accompanies the injury. When a central Government agency requires land it advises the local planning authority, which is the county council concerned, but initially it does not inform the landowners concerned. Furthermore, it requires the planning authority to maintain secrecy about its demands. I think it is ridiculous to suppose that secrecy can be maintained in these circumstances. What happens is, I think, inevitable. The secret partly leaks out and a miasma of rumour, doubt, speculation, distortion, exaggeration and misrepresentation about the project, whatever it may be, spreads round the district. Sometimes quite a number of people in the district know about a Ministry's plans, but not the landowners or the parish councils, or sometimes the rural district councils concerned. In the prevailing doubt farmers naturally sometimes become acutely worried about the future of their business and their livelihood. I should like to ask: why is this discourtesy shown them? Why is this secrecy thought necessary? Should not the owner of the land be the first person to be told if a Ministry has plans for his land, even if they are only tentative ones?
Sometimes, of course, only a very small piece of land is required by the Ministry, but it is the case that the compulsory acquisition of quite a small piece of land may in certain areas of a farm have wholly disastrous consequences for the entire economy of the farm. In such circumstances I would have thought courtesy and equity demanded that a Ministry should advise the farmer of the plans quite categorically and as early as possible, at the same time as it consults the planning authority. Would the
1092
noble Lord who is to reply to this debate care to make any comment on this matter? if he wishes, I can quote concrete examples where this discourteous behaviour is going on at the present moment.
I should like to refer briefly to the White Paper on the Annual Review for 1965 which has been very fully discussed in our debate to-day. I have to say at once that I think it is a misleading document this year. One of the fundamental points which the Government seem to wish to drive home is that they are contributing some £10 million by way of increased agricultural support towards increased costs of some £30 million. That is all very well, but it is only a proportion, possibly a minority, of farmers who are to share in the increased support at all. A great many farmers—I would think the majority—are to be asked to absorb their increased costs entirely. Take, for example, the case of a medium-sized farmer growing corn and running an intensive poultry unit. He gets only a very marginal benefit from the Review, though his costs, like everyone else's, have increased. He not only has to bear increased costs, but has to accept a swingeing decrease in the coming year in the guaranteed prices for his products. His corn prices will be down, his egg prices will be down, his fertiliser subsidy will be reduced. Therefore, I think it is misleading to suggest that a man in this category is getting any benefit at all towards his increased costs from the Review.
There is a further important point here. The prices which farmers are to be guaranteed for their produce in 1965 are estimated against their costs in 1964, and farmers are not agreeing that the 1965 prices are fair to them in comparison with the 1964 costs. But what about the further increases in costs for 1965? Are Her Majesty's Government confident that they will be able to hold costs steady during the coming year? Whatever they feel about it, I can only say that a great many people are not confident that they will be able to do so. We have all the signs now, I am afraid, of an escalating inflation. The most scandalous aspect of this matter is that it is in connection with those costs over which the Government have most control that we in the farming industry expect the greatest inflation. We

1093
are not seriously worried about the possibility of big increases in fertiliser costs; we are not worried about seriously increased machinery costs; but we are worried about the probability of increased fuel charges through additional fuel duty, about increased transport charges for the same reason, about increased electricity charges, increased rates, increased National Health Insurance charges, and increased postal charges. In fact, we are worried about every form of cost over which the Government have any control, direct or indirect.
These increases have not been trivial ones. In some instances I think they have been extortionate. Rates are up on average 13 per cent., National Health Insurance is up 25 per cent., and postage is up 33 per cent. The Ministry of Agriculture bull licences have gone up by 2,100 per cent. I should like to ask why there has been this extortionate increase in that particular case. Have the Ministry's own costs risen by 2,100 per cent.? If so, would it not be a good thing if the Ministry tried to absorb some of its increased costs? Are Her Majesty's Government determined to do anything at all to check these increases? I would put the matter like this. I believe that at heart the farming community are not concerned to seek higher prices for their produce. They ask that their costs should be kept steady, and, in the absence of this, they resent being made the first whipping-boy of inflation.
In a short speech it is impossible to make a detailed analysis of Command Paper 2621. My main criticism is that the Appendices and Tables attached to it are selectively chosen material and, as such, are a little misleading. To give just one example, Table K claims that agricultural output has increased by 37 per cent. over the last ten years. Appendix 2 suggests that farm incomes have increased by something less than 30 per cent. over the same period. That might not be too bad a relationship between the two if the value of money had remained constant over the ten years, but the value of money has not remained constant. If one compares farm output with farm income in real terms, one gets a position where output has risen by 37 per cent. over ten years but farm income, in real terms, has increased not at all.
1094
The picture surely is this: from agriculture ever-increasing output and increasing contribution to the national economy and the balance-of-payments situation; but for the men who run the industry, decreasing income in real terms, therefore decreasing prosperity. They are in fact running hard to stand still, if not actually to go backwards. This is the exact opposite of the situation in some other industries in the country, where one sometimes has decreasing output, a decreasing contribution to the national welfare and economy, but not infrequently increasing rewards for the men who run those industries. I should have thought that in this paradox Her Majesty's Government should be able to find quite a lot of food for thought.
7.12 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a speech in the other place, referred to the problems arising from the wide difference between farms in size and management, and the need for long-term development in order to create conditions in which the smaller farmers can raise their standards. Farms are becoming production units. It is necessary that we have the new image stamped in our minds. We are in a state of transition from the green-fingered, overworked rustic image to that of the nimble technician and sophisticated factory manager. The day is going when the farmer could rely on his own native intelligence, energy, guts, and bargaining powers.
I am going to deal entirely with maximum production and costs reduction. The question of marketing has already been dealt with. The company in which I have an interest and of which I was chairman until two years ago are the largest producers of agricultural lime in the country. We sell direct to farmers through a sales and technical staff of over 200, and we are intimately connected with their problems. During the course of the last ten years or so we have developed in other fields outside agricultural lime—I refer to liquid and crystalline fertilisers and a liquid feed supplement for cattle. It was not until I became chairman of that company that I realised the magnitude of the problems farmers have to deal with. My colleagues and I are astonished by the neglect of greater liaison between industry,

1095
the farmer, universities and the research institutes, and the urgent need for real, positive co-operation. Here is an example of what I mean. In 1880 research was undertaken into urea feeding, but only to-day, in 1965, can we boast of the highly successful application of this work. One wonders how many keys to problems are rusting away in university archives and research laboratories because there is no adequate means of communication.
We have reason to be proud of our world lead in farming technique. When the history is written of farming in this country during the 20th century, the name of Tom Williams will be mentioned very frequently as the author of its Magna Charta. We now need to carry the work he started to a far higher level or we shall lose that lead, as we did in the computer industry and in many others where we have been world leaders. It is true that farming has been revolutionised in comparison with its condition in the early part of this century, but we were forced to do it in order to live and to reduce our balance of payments deficit. This condition is now going to continue and the pressure will increase. Our success has also resulted in enormous ancillary developments in agricultural machinery, fertilisers and animal feeds. It has also increased our dependence on foreign oilseed, which the farmers claim has increased feed costs in this last year by 10 per cent. Why should we be affected by an American decision to plant less, or by the failure of a soya bean crop?
Our scientists discovered how to extract magnesium from sea water, and to-day virtually the entire consumption of magnesium metal in the United States is extracted from sea water. But it leaves some 60 elements still dissolved in the water, elements needed for plant growth. I think the fruits of research on this matter may be published in the near future, and I shall not anticipate them. From coal, from oil, from the atmosphere we can produce our own protein equivalents. Let there be development grants for the industries that serve British agriculture. There are many of us who have enough faith in the future to set up expensive, well-equipped and staffed research laboratories for the pur-
1096
poses of increasing fertility and crop yields and for the improvement of feeding methods. Let the Government research institutes get away from their fear of commercial bias.
We are now experiencing an excess of emotion from medium and small farmers. If I were a small farmer relying entirely upon my limited natural gifts and capacity for hard work, I should feel exactly the same. There are many small farmers facing hard financial facts to-day, with a future which is dark. In any financial structure there is a stratum above and below which are marginal profits or losses. This is why the small farmer is proclaiming that he is being "squeezed out of business" Agriculture is not a business in this sense, but it is an industry trying to utilise and maintain to the fullest capacity every square yard of land. If more attention was given to scientific methods devised for these purposes, not even the small farmer would need to plead for financial protection. His increased productivity would be his bulwark of protection.
In 1962, the D.S.I.R. published a pamphlet called New Ways with Lime. On page 19, we find that, although we have had a subsidy for lime since 1937, over 20 years after, in 1958, there was an estimated deficiency of 30 million tons of calcium carbonate in our farmlands. Who is to blame—the scientists who drew attention to the need to control soil acidity, the Government or the farmers? There have been adequate supplies of lime, and soil surveys have been carried out at public expense. It would be nonsense to say that all small farmers neglect these available advantages, but far too many regard soil surveys as academic exercises, and prefer to rely on their "green fingers". The interpretation by a scientist of the results of a soil survey can be a highly scientific matter, but there are means of translating his vocabulary into language which is understood. The simple illustrations in the gardening columns of newspapers are an example.
Is the fact that the small farmer is forced to think in terms of short-term profits the difficulty? Is he not likely to be confused by subsidies and tax reliefs for quick returns? Would not an entirely revised scheme of cheap,

1097
long-term credit be better to enable him to buy ample stock? He should then be provided, whether he asks for it or not, with full information about his soil, the most suitable fertilisers and all the information he needs on trace minerals. The cheap credit scheme would also operate to enable him to engage in a long-term plan to increase his soil fertility. He must be kept up to date with the progress of agricultural research.
Agricultural research is always a longterm affair. The scientist evolves a theory, he tests it in the laboratory, and then he has to apply it to field trials for season after season, until the technique has been thoroughly established and costed, before it can be applied to an increase in plant and animal productivity. This is one of the reasons—I had evidence of this when I was in Moscow, Canada and America recently—why world famous centres, such as we have at Rothamsted, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Reading University and the Macauley Institute at Aberdeen fail to make headlines in this country. But they are household names among the agricultural scientists of the world. I should like to ask how many of our medium and smaller farmers have even heard of them or their work.
My Lords, the time has come to integrate these centres and endow them more generously with money for research. But this would be pointless if, at the same time, the agricultural industry did not give them unlimited facilities to develop their ideas and then make use of them. Our scientists are in the forefront of agricultural research, and one could elaborate on their findings indefinitely, but, like the prophets, they find little praise for their work in their own land. If this new Ministry of Science and Technology can prove to the scientists that at last their work has not been in vain, we shall see such a burst of enthusiasm for progress that I predict they might even overshadow the enormous part they played in the birth of this atomic age.
We as a country are faced with a financial crisis due to the adverse balance of payments. One of the key industries which can help us is farming. Is it really impossible for us to live to a much greater extent on our own produce if we look at farms as food production units
1098
and if we use every acre, including grouse moors and all marginal land? Cannot the Scottish Highlands become beef cattle ranches? We have, to my own knowledge and experience, proved that with liquid supplementary feeds containing the necessary balance of trace minerals, cattle can be grazed on fodder which we normally consider to be unsuitable. We have had many years of testing.
Finally, my Lords, to get a greater degree of security we must get as near to becoming self-supporting as modern science can afford. Farms must be considered as production units in a computer age. The farmer who has not received adequate scientific training must have it at his disposal—clearly defined channels leading to information. Lateral communication is vital between research units in industry, Government research units and the universities. Even to-day we still have to depend on the "green finger" capacity and inherited experience of the farmer. Together with scientific farming, the hazards of weather can be diminished immeasurably by long-term forecasts.
I now come to a very important matter, the study of pedigree rearing and genetics. This is only one branch which requires computer efficiency. Soil bacteria and balancing trace minerals is another. The subject is vast, the possibilities are exciting. I have been privileged to see some of the latest work of some of our own scientists, and it is exciting. The Minister is aware of the need for a declared longterm programme. The Price Review should become a true progress report of a partnership in the farming industry. Let us give agriculture no lesser vehicle for this purpose than is given to other industries. There are no frontiers of knowledge in farming that cannot be overcome, if we treat the farmer as a key industrialist.
7.28 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, the Price Review system, whereby the Government always have the last word, puts the responsibility on the Government—whichever Government it be—not just for the prosperity of the agricultural industry but for the security of the food supply of this increasing nation. And because the cow has a gestation period of nine months; because it takes another year or eighteen months to rear the calf as a beef animal; because the number

1099
of cows is the limiting factor, and because it takes four years to provide an increase in the number of cows, so it will take some four to six years before any mistake a Government may make in relation to cattle breeding can be rectified, and the country get sufficient milk or beef.
I submit that, in the award in the Price Review of 1d. per gallon for milk, the present Government have put the future of British agriculture in jeopardy. We are a livestock agriculture. Seventy-five per cent. of what we market from the farms of the United Kingdom is livestock produce. And half, at the very least, of that livestock produce derives from the cow; and the Government have insulted the cow by offering her only 1d. a gallon more for her milk. Although the consumer will from October pay 4d. a gallon more, the cow will get only 1d.
What does this miserable 1d. amount to? One penny per gallon is roughly equal to £4 per good milking cow per annum, and in a 30-cow herd—the kind of herd that is the backbone of British agriculture, milk and beef—that amounts to £120 per annum. From this must be deducted the increase in the wages last autumn, and the further increase this spring. That alone takes up some £50 of the £120. The increase in National Insurance contributions comes to another £20, leaving the smaller farmer with £50, with which to cover the steadily rising costs in feed for the cow, machinery, fertilisers and, most devastating of all, the extra 6d. on a gallon of petrol. There is nothing left for himself to meet the increased cost of living. If the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, ran a dairy farm, he would take a much less optimistic view of this penny.
On a grassland dairy farm, geared solely to milk production—and that is what dairy farmers are being advised to do now—the increase in wages of the farm staff, and in their insurance, may nearly equal the whole of the 1d. per gallon, or £4 per cow per annum, leaving nothing for the other increased charges, including petrol. I wonder whether the powers-that-be realise how much capital is at risk on such a dairy farm. Quite apart from the value of the land, a group of the more efficient dairy farms in the East of Scotland, paying a rent of about
1100
£3 an acre and with an average of 55 cows, has at risk a capital of around £14,000 to £15,000 in respect of livestock, crops, implements and fixtures. Any farmer trying to set up on these lines would require much more to get him moving as a going concern.
He would require, apart from the land, a capital of something of the order of £20,000. Now this amount, invested in a sensible way, would yield the farmer, after deduction of tax for unearned income, at least £600 a year. So he and his wife—the working unit for such a farm—are entitled to the minimum wage, plus £600. Without any remuneration for management, and deducting also the farm worker's fixed rent for his cottage, the farmer of an efficiently run dairy farm is, by right, entitled to a net cash return of at least £2,000 if he is to break even with industry. There are farms where a net return of this magnitude has been reached, and a few farms where it has been considerably exceeded. But the majority of the dairy farms are nowhere near this level of profitability—and that in spite of all the improvements which the farmers themselves have made in the past ten years, with the average yields of cows up by nearly 200 gallons or 25 per cent. How many industries can show that level of increased productivity?
As your Lordships well know, there are in every sphere of life some persons who, by skill or by good fortune, can be shown to do extremely well; and there are others who can be shown to do extremely badly. Neither extreme can be held up as the model when the efficiency of that industry comes under examination. We have to consider the average, and decide the incentives by which the average can be induced to become more efficient. In time of peace, the basic incentive is financial reward, and I submit that this 1d. a gallon is absolutely no inducement to a dairy farmer to become more efficient. Remember that, before a dairy farmer can become more efficient, he must put down quite a lot more capital. In the present circumstances I submit that no bank manager is justified in encouraging him to do this.
It is not realised how much dairy farmers themselves have done to make their industry more efficient—and that not merely on their own farms. The English dairy farmer, through the English Milk

1101
Marketing Board, has spent, and is spending, a large sum in increasing the efficiency of the whole cattle industry. Over the years, the Milk Marketing Board has invested in its artificial insemination services over £3 million; and every year it is spending on milk recording, research, progency testing of bulls, and so on, nearly half a million pounds sterling. This is a substantial service, paid for by the 130,000 dairy farmers themselves, in order that they may become more efficient producers. Unless the industry gets a fair return, it is not reasonable to expect that it will be able to continue along these lines. The dairy industry of England is in these respects the best-organised dairy industry in the world, and in this matter we are the envy of the dariy farmer of the United States.
There is, however, a much more serious matter to consider as a consequence of any decline in the, profitability of milk production. The beef industry will be in jeopardy—and I most strongly support my noble friend Lord St. Oswald in making this point, as he did so clearly in his opening speech. With land values as high as they have become in all beef-eating countries—a factor which is often not properly appreciated—the production of calves where they are the total yearly output of a herd of cows (a calf a cow a year) is unlikely, for economic reasons, to expand sufficiently to meet demand, even in those countries where they have large ranching areas—in which, incidentally, supplies may be reduced seriously for long periods by drought: something that is happening in Australia and the Argentine at the present moment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, reminded us, the demand for beef is much more likely to be met from dairy herds with a combined saleable output of milk and calves and a relatively controlled environment that makes for a regular and predictable calf production each year. Since, by the nature of their operation, the artificial insemination services have closer connection with dairy herds than with beef, the speed with which genetic improvements may be introduced and spread is likely to be greater. This also applies to adjustments to meet the inevitable changes in consumer taste and in economic conditions of production. In the United Kingdom to-day our farmers produce roughly 60 per cent. of the beef we eat: the rest is imported. Of the
1102
beef that we in Britain produce, some 80 per cent. of it comes from the dairy cow. In other words, around half the total beef eaten in the United Kingdom to-day has its origin in the country's dairy herds.
To-day in Britain we are eating 50 1b. of beef per annum per head of the population. Compared with ten years ago, this is an increase of 17 lb. per head per person—not a bad index of the affluence created under the last Government. The British, having once more got their teeth into good beef, will almost certainly increase their annual consumption per head. We are, in fact, still 5 lb. per head per annum less than we were in 1938–39. To fill this gap of 5 lb. will require a further half-million calves per year. In fact, all the calves that one noble Lord mentioned Professor McGregor Cooper had said should be saved from our dairy herds would produce only that increase of 5 lb. per head per annum, making no allowance for the increase in the population. We can increase considerably if we have the incentive, but perhaps the Government prefer that, in the long run, we should import more beef, as it looks as if we are going to do in the case of aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the hills can carry 9 per cent. of all the beef cows. We must look this fact in the face. I reckon that the yield from this source would produce only about 3 per cent. of all the beef that we can produce in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, last century it was said that the "roast beef of old England" came from Scotland—and that was largely true. Then, in more recent years, it was truly said that it came from the Argentine. My Lords, the wheel has gone the full circle, and to-day the "roast beef of old England" comes chiefly from her own dairy herds. They are by far the largest single source of supply. No wonder we have a very large proportion of dairy cows to beef cows! I question whether any beef-eating country in the world has anything like so big a proportion. Due to resource and initiative, this has been accomplished without any lowering in the quality of the beef. In fact, our quality is as high as anywhere in the world.
Not only is the per capita consumption of beef increasing, but so is the human population. Thus, the figures I have given for future requirements are very

1103
conservative. Short of some form of induced twinning, the demand for home beef will be met only by a substantial increase in the number of our dairy cows. And this must be accepted even if in the immediate future it might mean some reduction in the average yield of the cow. Last December the chairman of the British Oil and Cake Mills, Mr. de Boinville, gave a closely reasoned statement which forecast the need for a substantial increase in our dairy herd if we are to maintain our proportionate supply of beef in the home market. His forecast, which has not been challenged so far as I know, is an increase from 3¼ million dairy cows now to 5 million dairy cows in seven years.
My Lords, this miserable increase of 1d. a gallon for milk is a positive disincentive to the dairy farmer. To break even with rising costs he needs 2d. a gallon. On this, his indignation is fully justified. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, truly said that the short prices this year will undermine confidence, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that there was no advantage in increasing milk production beyond the rate of consumption of liquid milk. This is a singularly myopic view for such a broad-minded person as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to take. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, pointed out that we are importing in dairy products a greater volume of milk already than is produced in this country. So there is plenty of slack to be taken up. In this connection the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, pointed out how much greater is the cost of producing butter in this country. But need this continue? If we put our minds to it, I am certain that the Milk Marketing Board can reduce this cost. And I am equally certain that the world price of butter will go up. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, about the difficulties of agricultural forecasting; but the facts in front of us of shortages in the future do not excuse our doing nothing now.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, about the need to develop home agriculture and the scope for further production. But there is, I think, a better solution to the whole problem of milk production. It is to remove milk completely from this Price Review. There is, in fact, no longer any direct
1104
Government subsidy to the mik producer; nor has there been for three years; nor, with the increase in 4d. a gallon to be paid by the consumer, will there be any subsidy. Surely the time has come to return to the Milk Marketing Board the complete powers they had before 1939 and let them resume direct negotiations on liquid milk prices with the distributors. I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to put this view forward when he spoke, and I was astonished that he did not do so. Cases of dispute that occurred in the negotiations between the Milk Marketing Board and the distributors would arise in joint committee and would be referred to the Consultant. The retail price of milk—and hence its distribution margin—would be determined in the same way.
The advantages of doing this would be considerable to the dairy farmer and, more so, to the Government. First, the responsibility for the proper level of the first-hand selling price for milk would rest firmly in one place, with the Board. These are the people who have the most direct interest in the welfare of the industry and the good will of the consumer. Secondly, economies in the marketing processes would be reflected in the realisation of milk sold and would therefore accrue in part to the Board, who would have the maximum incentive to pursue those economies. Thirdly, the authority of the Board as the body responsible for milk marketing would be free from interference resulting from the present Government's participation in marketing processes. Ample safeguards exist whereby the Government can protect the public interest against any abuse of authority.
Finally, my Lords, I would say this. If the Government do not free the dairy industry and return to the Marketing Boards their powers, then we have the clearest possible evidence that the dairy farmer is not intended to receive any subsidy whatsoever and that what is happening is that the dairy farmer is being sacrificed, to use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, at the altar of keeping down the cost of living. This sacrifice the dairy farmer might, indeed, be prepared to make if the costs of his raw materials and labour were also stable. But this is not so; and there is no likelihood

1105
that it will be so. Accordingly, I call for a complete reappraisal of the whole situation and the return to the Milk Marketing Board of their powers. Unless this is done we shall certainly be faced in five years' time with an acute shortage of milk and its products, and an acuter shortage of home-produced beef. The demand then will be met only by importing, and the price to which we shall then be held in ransom will be much higher than that at which we could have produced in this country. I would conclude as I began by saying that it takes six years' planning and hard work to put a fat steer on the market for the consumer.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I intervene? I understood him to say that in his opinion the beef produced by the dairy herds was just as good as the pure beef bred on the hill farm. I cannot agree with him there.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, the "super product", of course, comes from the absolutely pure breed; but there is a big change taking place in the consumer demand for the lean meat and there are many persons who prefer the meat obtained from the Friesian steer, which is almost completely devoid of fat, and would buy that rather than what I and the noble Viscount consider to be the proper luscious beef. But it is a fact that, with its acceptance by the consumer as desirable, the pure Friesian steer has become a new factor in the beef production of the world. But do not think I disagree with my noble friend.
7.49 p.m.
LORD DUNLEATH: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and respect to those noble Lords who have so far participated in this debate. A number of the topics which I was going to mention have already been covered with much more authority and clarity than I am able to command. I should therefore, with the permission of the House, like to confine myself to commenting on one or two aspects of the recent agricultural Price Review.
In reading the White Paper, I was struck by some interesting lines of thought on which Her Majesty's Government have
1106
embarked with regard to the longer-term prospects of the industry. An example of this is the development and expansion of the Small Farmer Schemes. The extension of existing benefits to farmers with a maximum rating of 700 man-days, as against 500 man-days, both figures being on the present basis of calculation, is surely a step in the right direction. In the past, I have been far from happy that money spent on Small Farmer Schemes has always been in the best interests of either the industry as a whole or the small farmer himself.
I am thinking now of a man with possibly a 25-acre farm, who has previously milked five or six cows. That may seem improbable to some of your Lordships, but I assure the House that there are many cases of this sort in Northern Ireland, where I live. A farmer of this sort may have been advised by the Ministry of Agriculture to expand his milk production under the Small Farmer Schemes and build a byre capable of holding, say, 12 or 14 cows. If he had sufficient land and resources to be able to carry 35 or 40 cows, then it would be worth while, but to tempt him by means of a Government grant to tie up what to him is a substantial amount of capital in a project which still will not make his business stand on its feet and give him a reasonable livelihood is surely doing more harm than good. Hard though it may seem, it might be better to advise him to plan to get out of milk altogether or, in some cases, in the long run, to get out of farming altogether.
The problem of the very small farmer is very difficult, with many social implications, and I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time by pursuing it now. But I would say that I think that Her Majesty's Government are quite right in extending the Small Farmer Scheme to include a broad band of farm businesses which have a much greater viability potential (if I may use the phrase) than those covered by the previous schemes. I am glad to see the provision in the White Paper about voluntary amalgamation, and I should be interested to know how this is going to work. I cannot see how it is going to be thought out, but I am sure it is thinking along the right lines.
It is also pleasing to see from the White Paper that an essential part of the new programme will be the keeping and

1107
the using of farm records as a basis for farm management decisions. This is good, constructive thinking and should be of far-reaching benefit to the smaller units of agriculture. It is also good to see that encouragement for record keeping is going to be extended to larger farm businesses as well. The importance of accurate costing and recording cannot be overstressed. Though a matter of normal routine in industry, I am afraid that in the past this aspect of management has received insufficient attention from farmers, not only small farmers but also those in the medium to large bracket.
Furtherance of the facilities for agricultural credit is also to be welcomed, though I feel that the advantages would be still greater if a certain amount of education in the use of short and medium term credit could be included. There may be little need of such advice in the more sophisticated rural areas of England, but I think that in some of the remoter parts of Northern Ireland, for instance, it could certainly serve a useful purpose.
Another example of constructive thinking is to be seen in the proposals of Her Majesty's Government regarding agricultural co-operation. Here is a field in which there is much room for advancement, as is shown by the success of some of the existing co-operative marketing groups, which have been established for a number of years. To be successful, such enterprises have to be undertaken in a realistic and businesslike manner, and some have failed for lack of these qualities. Financial assistance, particularly if backed by sound business advice, should result in a very positive step in the right direction. There is possibly more slack to be taken up in the marketing of agricultural produce than of any other commodity, and if this slack could be taken up I think it would go a long way towards reducing the dependence of the industry on Government support, a dependence which cannot be a source of satisfaction to anyone.
One of the most significant portents, perhaps, in the White Paper is the proposal outlined in paragraph 64. Here it is stated that discussions will soon be held between the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture and the Ulster Far-
1108
mers' Union to examine the possibility of setting up an agricultural trust. This trust would be financed by the special assistance grant, and its purpose would be to promote greater efficiency in marketing and to expand home and export markets. Whereas this project is the immediate concern of Northern Ireland only, I feel that the underlying principle is of such importance that consideration should be given to its application in a wider field. This really is progressive policy: that public money should not just be spent each year in subsidising farmers' incomes or the consumer for what he has to pay for his food, but that it should be invested in longer-term prosperity to reduce the need for income support in future. I think that not only Her Majesty's Government but also the Government of Northern Ireland are to be congratulated on this very forward-looking proposal.
I have so far tried to comment briefly on what I consider to be the good points in the Price Review. I think they are good and it would be churlish not to give credit where credit is due. It is that much the more regrettable that the Review as a whole cannot be regarded as satisfactory. This, I would respectfully suggest, is due to the failure of Her Majesty's Government to appreciate one or two very important factors. One of these, which has been mentioned a great deal in your Lordships' House this afternoon, is the disparity between incomes in agriculture and those in the rest of industry. If I took up the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, correctly, he suggested that farmers drive Jaguars. I can assure the noble Lord, if he were still in his place, that the Northern Ireland farmer does not drive a Jaguar. I sincerely wish he did—because I sell Jaguars in Northern Ireland.
The point is often made by people outside the agricultural industry that things cannot really be too bad. The prices being paid for agricultural land are always on the increase and the level of capital investment in agriculture remains high. Against this, I think it is appreciated that, taking the country as a whole, the return on capital invested in farming is considerably less than that which could be obtained from most other forms of investment. The reason for the continuing high level of investment in

1109
both land and farm installations is, I would suggest, not so much from desire as by necessity. Modest though incomes have been in the past, if they are to be maintained, let alone increased, there is no alternative but to mechanise, and, as any noble Lord who farms will agree, to mechanise means to capitalise in a big way.
Similarly, any farmer who has been dispossessed by a motorway or housing development and has to buy more land, is forced to pay much more than he considers it worth, for the simple reason that every year that goes by there is less and less land available for him to purchase. Possibly another reason for the pressure on land is that so many small farmers realise that they must increase the size of their holdings, if steadily mounting overheads are to be covered and if their farm businesses are to remain viable. If farming were not a way of life that had been bred into them, many farmers would long ago have taken their capital elsewhere.
The inadequate reward for those in milk production has been the subject of much reference, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. As a dairy farmer, I would add just this comment. I pay my two byremen (perhaps I should call them cowmen, as they are called in this country) as much as I can afford, but I know quite well that it is not enough. Apart from the long hours they have to work, the degree of skill, responsibility and conscientiousness required by a good cowman would earn him £20 or £25 a week in industry, with probably much pleasanter working conditions. Were it not for the dedicated stockmanship of such men, and the pride they take in their work, I think they would without hesitation choose an easier way of life. Unless the profit margin on milk is increased, so that those who do the hard work can be properly rewarded, I fear that the decline in the number of milk producers will accelerate alarmingly.
A second factor which does not seem to have been fully appreciated by Her Majesty's Government—though it has been mentioned several times this afternoon—is the tremendous potential of the agricultural industry to contribute to the national economy. If, as the White Paper says, such contribution will be considered as part of the National Economic
1110
Development Plan, surely this is not the time to apply the brake. Though I speak as a complete layman in these matters (I am not an economist), I should have thought that if agriculture were allowed to expand in the way in which it could expand, it would have the effect of making so great a saving in imports that even the fears that have been expressed about retaliatory measures from exporting countries would lose their significance.
Thirdly, it is surprising to me, in view of the Government's most laudable sentiments concerning improved productivity, that they should have chosen this moment to reduce the lime and fertiliser subsidies. Productivity is closely linked with output per acre, and a decline in the use of lime and fertilisers cannot fail to have a detrimental effect. And I think there is little reason to believe that the manufacturers will always be able to adjust their prices to offset the reduction of Government support. My Lords, in my humble opinion, this Price Review can be compared to the proverbial curate's egg. It is just unfortunate that its excellent parts do not compensate for the unappetising smell which has been left in the nostrils of British farmers.
8.2 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I have sat on the Opposition Benches for 40 years and I have farmed for 33 years, so I crave your Lordships' indulgence for the few comments I wish to make in this debate. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Henley. He suggested that we should allow cereals to rise to Common Market levels. I was not quite certain how he meant that this should be done, but I have down that it was to restrict imports until prices have risen to Common Market levels, and that is what I think he meant.
If this happened, the result would be, first, that no cereal subsidies would be needed; secondly, that farm wages could be raised to the industrial level; and, thirdly, that young men who are leaving the agricultural industry would be attracted back. At the moment, where I come from, on Romney Marsh, it is practically impossible to get a man to go into agriculture, and all we have left are the middle-aged and aged men. I know that in other parts of the country the situation is not quite so bad—they have not atomic power stations, and so

1111
on, competing for labour—but I can well see that in fifteen or twenty years' time there will be no labour available for agriculture in the South of England. Therefore, something must be done to raise the return to the farmer, so that he can pay his men more money.
I should also like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in what she said about livestock producers. They must have more money for their produce. The shepherd on the hill cannot be mechanised, and in order to pay him higher wages the farmer must obtain higher prices for the store sheep and store cattle that he sells. As I have said, I farm on Romney Marsh. I can mechanise the shepherding of my dry flock (as we call it), but I cannot mechanise my lambing. Therefore, I should need more money for wool, which we have not had in the Price Review.
I was not going to touch on the Price Review, but I was told by the members of the Wool Board that wool was likely to go up by 2d. per lb. I think that that "leak" was rather like the "leak" on milk. A "leak" of 2d. a gallon was indicated on milk, I believe, and the Treasury put their foot on it. These "leaks" which turn out to be untrue do more harm than good, and I wish that somebody would keep his mouth shut.
LORD CHAMPION: So do I.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: We wool farmers must stick together. Therefore, I would make this suggestion to the Prime Minister. Subsidise meat and the milk consumer; support the farmer by food import restrictions. They, in turn, will help the agricultural machinery industry, which, because there is a steady demand at home, will be able to keep its prices down and so enable its exports to be improved. If necessary, let us have an internal pound for this country, but keep the pound abroad stable. Agriculture is the goose that lays the golden egg. Do not kill the goose.
8.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, at this late hour, may I echo what the noble Lord opposite said, referring to hill farming? He used the words, "where at the end of the day it will have the better results", and I hope that these few observations will be received in that spirit. We are discussing an industry
1112
on which we all depend, and anything said in your Lordships' House always has great attention paid to it. I do not wish to deal with the details of the Price Review which we are discussing to-day, but only, and, quite briefly, with the farmers' reactions to it. The farmers—and I am one of them—are disappointed for three reasons, which have been mentioned more than once this afternoon.
First, the farmer sees, rightly or wrongly, other industries protected by duties putting up their prices to cover their rising costs of labour, while he is asked to carry most of his increased costs by one means or another. Secondly, while his output has gone up, he feels that his net income has fallen, and that it is not rising as it has risen for his fellows in industry, whom he is largely feeding. Thirdly—and this is an important point—he is frustrated because he has come to realise that the industry is reaching a point where increased production appears not to be wanted, and that if he wishes to increase his production he should rather turn to increasing his acreage, which is available only at high prices.
These feelings have, of course, crystallised, so far as the public are concerned, in the disappointment felt by the producers at the 1·2d. increase in the price of milk. I think it has already been said this afternoon that if many more people drop out of the industry the very delicate balance between the dairy, fatstock and corn-growing sides of agriculture will be upset. Fewer calves for beef will be born, and this is very important, as any farmer like myself in the West Country would tell your Lordships. He knows how difficult and expensive it is for him to obtain calves. If the land which the dairy farmer had is not grazed, it will most probably be used for corn; and thus again the industry is further put out of balance, and more corn is grown, with fewer mouths to feed. It has been said that the greater rise in acres would cause too great an increase of production. This is arguable, but I must make the point that, once having left milk, it will be very costly for the farmer to return to it, because of the specialised buildings required and the fact that the herd will have to be rebuilt slowly.
I mentioned rising costs. Last year we had one of the finest corn harvest

1113
weathers on record—an enormous help to us in getting in our crop and reducing our cost overheads. Our main cost rise last year was, of course, the wage award, and I must again make the point that if farmers are to be able to attract those fine, hard-working men whom we employ on our farms, particularly in those districts in close range to the towns (and what farm is not to-day in close range of a town?) their return must be big enough to make it possible. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, talked about the levels of the wages of farmworkers, and I agree with him that, if we had the figures in front of us, they would give us much food for thought. One of our main items of cost nowadays, of course, is for machinery. We are obviously more and more bound to the machine and the crop sprayer, without which we could not control our weeds, mildews, and the like. There are not many more economies to be made in this respect.
I belong—in fact I joined at the first stage, some years ago—to a group of farmers who formed a joint workshop to repair and service our equipment, and to provide ourselves with farm supplies. I do not think there are many more reductions in costs to be made in this respect. Indeed, in order to attract fitters to our workshops, and to keep them, we have had to increase our labour charges by some 40 per cent. in the last five years, which shows to some extent the disparity between town and country. Many of these groups of farmers have been formed, and though we must remember the administrative costs entailed, we should also note that the administrative costs of farmers, with the inherent dislike of paper which all practical men have, are very low. On my own farms, I can think of only three falls in prices this year—binder twine, seeds and some feeding-stuffs, which in themselves are agricultural products.
I do not intend to deal with my second point, about the failure of farm incomes to keep pace with this increase in production. It has been more than publicised recently in the Press, and we have heard a great deal about it this afternoon in your Lordships' House. My third point is the feeling that the farmers' increases in output are not going to be wanted. This brings to the fore that very intractable problem—that most in-
1114
tractable of all agricultural problems—the disposal of surpluses. Greater returns lead to ever-increasing production, when the law of diminishing returns sets in. We have encouraged our farmers into high farming for high productivity and, like any other industrialist, a successful farmer takes pride in pushing forward the output and the achievements of his farm.
I am glad in a small measure to see that there has been an increase in the standard quantities for cereals, although this is only a very small figure. Farmers as a class are very much aware of the trading position of our country, and how we are regulated by trading agreements. I am sure the Minister will do his level best to see that the import-saving virtues of our industry are exploited to the full. I believe that our wool trade is quite considerable; we are sending some millions of pounds of home-grown wool abroad.
I have nearly finished. There are many influences at work in the mind of the farmer to-day which make him afraid of the future. One was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger—the destruction of our farm land. I do not intend to deal with that. The other influence is that farmers see the village children being taken away by buses to the secondary schools, and they fear—it may be only a fear—that the minds of those children are being turned away from the country towards the towns.
It is a very heavy price we have to pay in this country for being a centralised State, and one of the prices we have to pay is that wage awards, Price Reviews, call it what you will, invite invidious comparisons and are subject to the widest publicity. Nevertheless, I think that the constantly swinging balance between town and country, interdependent as they are, is tilting at the moment too far in favour of the town at the expense of the country. I thank your Lordships for listening so patiently to me.
8.20 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as usual in your Lordships' House, an agricultural debate has produced a fund of knowledge and a fund of information, and I feel that this afternoon's debate has been extraordinarily interesting. I should like, if I may, to pay a particular tribute to the two noble Lords who made maiden speeches this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord

1115
Hurd, and the noble Lord, Lord Collison. Both of these noble Lords are distinguished in agriculture and have given great services to agriculture, and their words will, I am sure, be weighed most carefully by the Government, and I, for one, certainly look forward to their taking part in all our agricultural debates in future.
The range of this debate has been considerable. We have moved from the balance of payments to the Agricultural Price Review, to the forecasting of supplies and even to free Health Service drugs and Stansted Airport. I am bound to say that it is the first time, certainly in my recollection, that the Pope has been called in aid to bolster an argument in an agricultural debate. It merely shows, suppose, the fertility of imagination that abounds in your Lordships' House, certainly in regard to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, to ensure that the compass of the debate is as extensive as possible and that no stone shall be left unturned.
My Lords, I was very surprised at the extremely Party speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. Unfortunately he is not in his place at the moment. Indeed, no doubt on this occasion he thought it fit to blow off and blow out as quickly as possible, because he was in his place, I think, for no more than two minutes after he resumed his seat. And I would, if I might, with the greatest respect, register a modest word of protest that it is possibly a trifle discourteous to the House to make a highly Party speech and then to remove oneself so that one's points are completely unable to be answered in one's presence.
What worried me about what the noble Lord said was that it showed a completely ill-informed view of the agricultural situation. His main onus of complaint, as I understood it, was that on his way to the House yesterday and to-day he kept on tripping over Bentleys and Jaguars that belonged to farmers who had come here to lobby their Members of Parliament. I would say that a National Farmers' Union costing that was undertaken recently on 5,000 farms showed that 43 per cent. of farmers earned less than £600 per annum. If that is supposed to be representative of people who run Bentleys and Jaguars I think the suggestion is slightly distorted. Out of that £600 the farmer is supposed
1116
to receive not only return on his capital but also return on his own labour and his own management, which of course is not restricted to a 40-hour week. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, when he reflects, will consider that what he said was really unwarranted and unfortunate. It is more unfortunate because, of course, he hails from the part of the country from which his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture also comes. I can only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, when he comes to make his speech, will assure your Lordships that the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, really were very personal views and do not represent the attitude of Her Majesty's Government.
My Lords, with regard to the Price Review itself, I only wish to make one specific reference, to say that I can understand the degree of aggravation engendered by the farmers with regard to the "Penny Black" on milk, but I disapprove wholeheartedly, as I am sure most noble Lords do, of the very extreme views that have been expressed and the actions that have been threatened by some of the more lunatic fringe of the farming community. I can imagine no better way of alienating totally public opinion than jamming up all the roads on a Bank Holiday or letting forth a herd of pigs in Piccadilly Circus, as has been suggested.
The ideas are, of course, ludicrous and are typical of farmers' public relations in general, which are appallingly bad. I believe that one of the best things that the National Farmers' Union could do would be to hire the services of a first-class public relations firm—as indeed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, indicated—so that the farmers' views could be put across in a balanced and reasonable fashion. Indeed, I think the new idea of publicising their views in the papers is a good one and it would enable the farming viewpoint to be put across clearly and reasonably yet in a forthright manner.
But the fact is—and we must admit this—that whereas the large farmer is doing tolerably well, the small farmer is doing intolerably badly. Admittedly the large farmer has his problems over the utilisation and obtaining of capital for the development of his business, and over making the fullest use of techniques and machinery, growing in size,

1117
complexity and cost year by year. But these problems, though of larger proportion the bigger the farm becomes, equally become the more easy of solution. To take an example, it is clearly much easier for a farmer who employs ten men to make a reduction in his labour force of 10 per cent., and a consequent reduction of his labour costs, than for a farmer who employs only one man. Not only is the larger farmer in a better position vis-à-vis the small farmer, but the large producer is in a better position vis-à-vis the small producer. I hasten to make the point that the two are not necessarily the same, because the small farmer can be a large producer of a particular commodity, such as pigs or eggs.
This trend of more economical operation coming from the large producer is, of course, not peculiar to agriculture. It occurs in every sphere of our life, as your Lordships know only too well. At all stages the trend is for the bigger enterprise. It may be sad, and one may regret it; but it is a fact. The difference is that in agriculture the trend is more personal and more human, and, consequently, the more stubbornly resisted. The position of the small farmer in the future of agriculture is, to my mind, the greatest political decision that the Government of this country, whichever Party forms the Government, will have to take in the near future. I greatly admired Lord Collison's remarks, when he faced this question quite straightly. After all, the problem is here and it cannot be avoided, although political expediency could require it to be shelved.
The small farmer of 40 acres cannot begin to compete in growing barley with the 600-acre farmer. A farmer with 100 milking cows may be making a reasonable profit on his herd, and yet one with 17 cows may not only be making a loss but may well be driven to distraction and wracked with worry into the bargain. The 15,000-bird unit may prove a highly profitable egg-producing enterprise, whereas the farmer with 500 birds cannot make ends meet. What happens then is that, because he cannot make ends meet, the 500-bird farmer does not increase his size; the 15,000-bird farmer may possibly double his size, and in doing so, of course, doubles his output, which will then represent the
1118
output of thirty 500-bird farmers. If the price of eggs is thereafter lowered, he, the larger producer, is more in a position to be able to absorb the reduction than the smaller producer, who is put in a yet worse position.
The question that arises from this is, are we right to encourage the small farmer? Are we right, as a nation, so to fix the level of our support in agriculture that small farmers can make a reasonable living? Because if that is so, large farmers, by virtue of their economies of size and operation, will make more than a correspondingly reasonable living, and the small farmer will, in effect, be subsidising the large farmer, which is a ludicrous situation.
Here let me hasten to add that I am speaking entirely for myself in this regard. I do not represent any views of my Party. Indeed, I think if your Lordships look at the list of speakers you will see a typographical error, in so far as there were two spaces left above my name whereas, in fact, they should have been left after my name. The views I express are entirely my own. I should equally like to point out that farming is my livelihood, but I am not a large farmer; I am not one who farms large acres and therefore might be considered numb to the views of the small farmer. I farm 250 acres, which anyone who knows the Eastern Counties will know is not large, by any standards. It does, however, enable one to see some of the complexities the small farmer has, and make one endlessly thankful that one's farm is not a quarter of the size, and equally endlessly regretful that it is not double the size.
The point I am making is, are we right to encourage the small farm? If the bigger unit can produce the goods more cheaply, are we not right to encourage the larger unit? Some say there should be some form of variation in agricultural support and the prices paid, so that the small farmer, for no reason other than the fact that he is a small farmer, may receive a higher price for, say, his milk than the same article produces on a larger farm. I should be totally opposed to such action, for it would deliberately foster and encourage production of a commodity from an uneconomic and inefficient source. I believe Her Majesty's Government are aware of this point with

1119
regard to the small farmer, for the Minister of Agriculture said in his statement on the Price Review:
"We are therefore planning measures to encourage an increase in the size of holdings on a voluntary basis".
When I pressed the noble Lord, Lord Champion, a week ago, in a Starred Question, as to what he meant, the noble Lord stalled sharply and said "Wait and see". Frankly I was not surprised. I hope he will be able to say a little more this evening, not necessarily as to what the Government's proposals are but as to the way in which the Government's mind is turning.
If we are not right to encourage the smaller farmer, are we right to discourage him? This poses a whole set of different questions. The small farmer provides variety in agriculture. The farming community provides the basic stock from which our nation grows and has grown, and let nobody discount the importance of that; it would be a thousand pities if that were to go. The small farm provides the ladder by which a keen and enthusiastic young man, with little more than determination and hard work and yet intent on making a living in agriculture, can climb.
On the other hand, the small farm can provide its occupier with a vast amount of hard work, endless worry and very small reward. I remember a man who had been a cowman once telling me lie was going to hire a 40-acre farm, and what did I think about it. I told him slavery had been abolished a hundred years ago and I could not see why he wanted to reinstate it. It did not make the slightest difference to his intenion, and he went ahead and I believe made a success of it. That is the point: you will get people who will make a success of running against the grain. It is right that we should acknowledge it, but it is another thing delberately to foster it. Small farms will, of course, always be in demand, because people love to be on their own, to be their own master and to be independent. But independence is becoming a very expensive commodity.
The future of the small farm is always a highly controversial subject, and it is too easy to shrug one's shoulders and refuse to face it, and I make no apology
1120
for endeavouring to face it a little this evening. But why is it controversial? The answer is that 70 per cent. of the farms of this country are farms of under 100 acres. Therefore, the biggest proportion of farmers in fact farm small farms. For many reasons this may be desirable, and I do not discount that, but let us be quite clear that it is not economic. I think that this should be faced quite openly and clearly. To my mind, there is a place for the small farmer, albeit a diminished one and a diminishing one. I do not think he should be considered as sacred or untouchable, as indeed are not the small shopkeeper, the small businesses or the small factory. Public opinion and farming opinion must realise this. For those farmers who are not on their own naturally successful, whether that is due to themselves or to the type of farming which they do or to the location of their farms, some form of amalgamation or surrendering of independence must surely come about.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the other day whether Her Majesty's Government were considering a form of payment to encourage small farmers to give up their holdings, which I euphemistically described as a "golden pitch-fork." The noble Lord was not forthcoming; I did not think he would be. But I would ask him seriously to consider whether some such scheme might not be advisable, to offer to some farmers below a certain acreage a payment per acre if they were to elect to give up their holdings. Such paymentas this might induce, but it would not compel, small farmers to give up their holdings. Those who felt that things had got on top of them could leave their holdings and could do so with advantage. Those who did not wish to avail themselves of this offer would be under no obligation whatever to do so. It would be there for those who did. This may not be the solution. It may not even be a realistic answer. I merely put it forward as a suggestion which might be considered.
One thing is certain to my mind, and that is that the real nub of agriculture in the future, the real problem, is going to be the position of the small farmer. This is a problem that must be faced and cannot be evaded. It will not decrease in intensity; the problem will merely increase in intensity over the next five

1121
or ten years. Her Majesty's Government have shown that they are not averse to tackling unpopular and controversial subjects, albeit not usually in a wholesome and successful manner, but I hope that, nevertheless, they will not defer from turning their minds to this problem.
8.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORI) CHAMPION): My Lords, first of all, of course, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for having put down this Motion which enables us to consider this important matter of the Price Review and the general condition of agriculture. But I am particularly grateful to him because the debate has given us to-day two quite remarkable maiden speeches.
We had first that of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. I thank him very much for his kindly references to our association in another place. We differed and we agreed; but if we disagreed, I always tremendously respected his knowledge on this subject of agriculture. He told us in the course of his speech that he was hoping to educate Her Majesty's present Ministers. My Lords, he has been doing that for a long time. Certainly the noble Lord has been educating me for very many years in the other place, and I believe in the columns of The Times as well, where he wrote for some time. He told us that he was going to be non-contentious, and I suppose that to some extent he was; but if he was non-contentious to-day, I hate the thought of our next debate on Agriculture.
The noble Lord made some points which I am sure the Minister will want to consider very carefully, and in particular the one with reference to his visits to Australia and, I think, to South America—
LORD HURD: To the Argentine.
LORD CHAMPION: —where conditions are affecting at this time the production of beef. My right honourable friend has, of course, been negotiating on this whole business of the importation of chilled beef, particularly, but if the conditions which he felt existed have, in fact, been destroyed by conditions of drought then clearly he must think again about the whole problem we are facing here, which we were hoping had been overcome. I refer to the future supply
1122
of beef from these parts of the world, added to by our own stepping-up of our beef production in this country. But, to revert to Lord Hurd's speech, despite what I have said about fearing his contentious speeches in the future, I know that we shall look forward to his future contributions.
We have had, too, a quite remarkable maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Collison. Unfortunately he has an important function to-night. It is one of those engagements that he entered into some time ago, and he had to attend. He apologises to me, and to the House, for his absence at this time. I must say that he is an old personal friend ofmine, one whom I met in the course of his duties as the General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers and in other spheres within the trade union world. I envied his fluency when he was speaking to-day. It certainly was a quite remarkable speech, and I noticed that the House listened to him with the attention that it gives to one who speaks with the sort of knowledge he has and with the fluency which he displayed.
Lord Collison's experience of the industry comes from a side that has not previously been represented in this House, the agricultural workers' side, and we are glad that he comes to us with this particular background and with the knowledge of agriculture that he has. It so happens that he also has a very wide and deep knowledge of international conferences. He has been to some extent schooled in the T.U.C., which is a pretty tough school, but I am sure that we are grateful to him, and shall look forward to his speeches in the future.
The noble Lord referred—and I think it was justifiable that he should do so—to the willingness of the agricultural worker to adopt new techniques. I accept this, and I believe that the example set by the agricultural worker is one which might well be, and indeed ought to be, followed by the workers in some other industries. I hope that his remarks will have some effect outside this particular field and generally in the wider context of trade union and other activities.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, gets up; he puts his notes and his head down, and addresses that Box;

1123
and then he proceeds to poke gentle fun at me. Who am I to complain if I feel, bouncing up at me off that Box over there, a faint whiff of midnight oil? And I do not complain, for a good speech ought to have about it a smell of midnight oil, though no speech should reek of it. The noble Lord's speeches do not reek, and they are very good indeed. We have now had several exchanges, and the more we have had the more I have come to recognise this. If I have a complaint to make about the noble Lord, it is that he picks on a man like me, a man who has spent a very cloistered existence and has been sheltered from the hurly-burly of the debate. I wish the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, were here, because if he were I would urge him to move the noble Lord to some other Department where he would find a foeman more worthy of his wooden sword. The noble Lord is very knowledgeable about agriculture, both as a former Parliamentary Secretary and as a landlord, and he knows perfectly well that this Review, when looked at in the light of our economic circumstances, is a very good one indeed.
I am grateful to him for something he said about the invitation which he extended to me some little time ago. He told us that as a result of this Review this invitation that he issued to the whole of the Front Bench had now to be limited to two of us, my noble Leader and myself. My Lords, I am sorry that this Review should have had this effect upon his finances—
LORD ST.OSWALD: So am I!
LORD CHAMPION: —but I can tell him that I shall be glad to come along and accept his hospitality, provided that the game is well hung; that the pàté de foie gras is the best that Strasbourg can provide; that he remembers that I like my caviar black. And I rather hope that he will give me the full run of that capacious and well-stocked cellar of his, so that I may choose the best vintage of his port. If he promises this, I shall be happy to accept his kind invitation.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has on past occasions congratulated me on not being an Agriculture Minister and having no Departmental responsibility for the announcement which I had to make in this House upon this Annual Review.
1124
It is the case that but for the wholly unaccountable caprice of a certain electorate in Derbyshire in 1959 I might well have been to-day in Mr. Peart's shoes, getting the chicken if not the bird. But of this I am pretty sure: that if I had happened to stand in his shoes I should not have produced a Review very different from the one that we are discussing to-day. I think it is just about the right Review, when viewed against the economic background and the general state of the agricultural industry.
We have to ask ourselves: what do we want for this great agricultural industry of ours? I can begin to answer my rhetorical question by saying that what I certainly do not want is a depressed farm industry. The very last thing I want to see is an industry such as we had in those Tory inter-war years, from which the Act of 1947 provided the permanent escape and for which farmers ought to be eternally grateful to Tom Williams, as he then was, in his having introduced it and put it on the Statute Book so as to secure the whole matter for the farming community. The agricultural industry of those inter-war years, in which I struggled to a minor extent, could not afford to give away an egg, never mind a thousand chickens, as a protest.
I want to see maintained in this country a reasonably prosperous agricultural industry in which efficient farmers farm viable units. Here I am at one with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the unit ought to be a viable economic unit. I want to ensure that on such a unit the farmer gets a reasonable return on his capital and a decent salary for his management and work. This is what I hope for agriculture, and I am sure my right honourable friend does too. But what we also have to try to ensure and maintain, through all this business, is the balance in relation to the three groups of interest which are involved: the agricultural industry, the consumer and the taxpayer. These are the three groups we always have to consider at the time of a Price Review. My right honourable friend must never forget that he is the Minister of Food as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
How easy it would be for the Government to have bought a little cheap popularity in the short term by an overgenerous Review, only to have to face

1125
the anger of the taxpayer and the consumer when the bills had to be paid and the taxes collected! Although I am a Party political animal, and even if this were an Election year, I should be strongly opposed to using taxpayers' and consumers' money to buy votes, which is something I strongly suspect happened last year. I hope I am wrong in my suspicion. But the history of the Annual Reviews over the past years does nothing to dispel any suspicion that I may harbour in this connection. The facts are here. If I have to recite them I will, but I thought, in view of the possible length of my speech, I would not, unless the noble Lord forces me.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I put one point on that? The 2½d. award for the milk last year cost the taxpayer nothing.
LORD CHAMPION: No, my Lords, but it cost the consumer something, of course. And, as I said just now, there are three sets of interests to be considered: the taxpayer, the consumer, and, of course, the industry itself. I am not going to go over the figures. I have them here, and some of them have already been given by my noble friends Lord Hughes and Lord Blyton.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, twitted me because when I gave the Annual Review Statement in this House I failed to say whether or not this year's Annual Review was an agreed one. Inadvertently, I did not say. I will do so now. It was not agreed. Nor were the Tory Price Reviews always agreed. In fact, over the past thirteen years, excluding Election years, five have been agreed, five have been disagreed. Incidentally, I welcome the tremendous upsurge of interest shown by this House in this Price Review, particularly by Tory Members. I have looked up some of the debates in the past, and even in the years when there were minus-millions Reviews there were never as many Tory Back-Benchers speaking about those Reviews as we have heard to-day. I just wonder whether this is because there happens to be a Labour Government in power. I would hesitate to suggest that the noble Lords have joined the Poujadists. But if they have, I sincerely hope they will not release pigs here, or block the roads leading to the Palace of Westminster with their tractors, or perhaps their Bentleys.
1126
There is a tremendous stirring up of feeling going on. Some of it I recognise as being a genuine expression of farming opinion, but much of it, I think, is the result of deliberate agitation by those who are opposed to this Labour Government. In politics one must expect this, but as an old trade union negotiator perhaps I may be permitted to offer a little advice to the responsible Farmers' Union leaders. It is this. Do not overstate your case, for if you do, an inevitable reaction against you will set in. Some noble Lords opposite made precisely this point, and I thank them for it as it is a sensible piece of advice to give to the Farmers' Union leaders. It is extremely difficult, despite what has been said in this House, for the public to accept that this is a very hard-done by industry, especially when they see farm land soaring in price, so that land which fetched £30 an acre in inter-war years is now fetching £300, with the larger units standing at an average of £214 an acre and the smaller ones at £224 an acre. This does not speak to me of a depressed industry, and I stress that the figures I have given about this relate to land used solely for farming purposes, land which is not likely to be used for development, where, of course, quite different considerations apply.
But, on the other hand, I am not going to be led away—and I am sure my right honourable friend is not going to be led away—by the stories of the Jaguars and the Bentleys and the Mercedes which we see in the market car parks when we happen to visit them, especially perhaps in some of the Eastern counties. I am not going to be led into thinking that all the farmers are in that sort of income group. Here I agree with Lord Ferrers, who I thought made a quite outstanding speech in this debate. I must say, in connection with the "Jags" and Mercedes, that I thoroughly enjoyed Osbert Lancaster's cartoon two days after the Price Review was announced, in which two farmers were sitting discussing this whole matter, with on farmer saying to the other, "I can't make up my mind whether to take the 'Jag' or the Mercedes on the protest march". I thought that was a delightful one, but I do not accept that this represents the whole of the farming industry.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION: I happen to know enough about it to know perfectly well that, while there are such things as "barley Barons", they are not representative of the whole of this industry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is a "barley Baron" and that the hospitality which he is going to extend to me will be on that scale, because, for me, it would be once in a lifetime.
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. I know only one, and he sits on the same Bench as the noble Lord.
LORD CHAMPION: If that happens to be the case, I must look to him for hospitality. On a more serious note, much has been said in criticism of this year's Review, and that we arc not leaving a sufficient amount of the result of the increased productivity in the hands of the farmers. If we take only the years 1955–56 up to and including 1964–65, we find that the taxpayers have contributed in these years, in direct agricultural support, some £2,700 million. This is a lot of money. Of course, the years that I have taken have left out all the years from 1947 to the year that I mentioned first—namely, 1955–56.
In the years 1947 to about 1951, there was a deliberate capital injection of £200 million designed to make this an industry in which greater productivity would be possible. I do not begrudge to this industry a single farthing of that, and I do not pretend that it was all used as net income, because I recognise that, in fact, part of the money which was injected kept the prices down for the consumer. But a large part of it did remain, and it is surely the case, in circumstances such as this, that part of the increased productivity that arises from the injection of taxpayers' money must accrue to the taxpayer and the consumer. It is right that this should happen.
My Lords, a full page advertisement put in by the Farmers' Union appeared in the national newspapers over the last week-end. It was a very good piece of propaganda, and they have been congratulated upon it by certain noble Lords opposite to-day. This told us that the farmers' real income has risen by less than 1 per cent. over the last twelve years. That figure must be slightly suspect, because if we take another starting point as the base year, 17 per cent. hap-
1128
pens to be the appropriate figure. In any case, I cannot quite see why we should be blamed for the fact that the farmers' real incomes have not gone up over the past twelve years. Why should we be blamed for that? The noble Lord opposite was in the Government for part of this period, and so were his friends, and I cannot see why we should be blamed for this. But I admit that facts of this sort have to be taken into consideration in Price Reviews by this Government, despite any failure of the Government that happened to precede us.
I say that, in the circumstances of the time, this award compares very well with those of previous years. It means an increase of £10·43 million in the total value of the guarantees to farmers. Output has risen by 10 per cent. on the last year. Farm income has risen by over 15 per cent. to £472 million—which is £63 million up on the previous year—and, adjusted to take account of the weather variations, the increase has been over 7 per cent. to £460½million. That is just a little of the background to the matter.
I am not in this debate to-night going to attempt to answer each speaker individually. If I tried to do so, this House would still be sitting at 3 p.m. to-morrow, which might mean washing out the Sitting, and there are no Bills to be blocked here, I gather. The debate, I can promise noble Lords, will be studied in the Departments and by Ministers. I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Wise about the value of a debate after a Review. He said that we ought to debate before, and not after, a Review. It seems to me that my noble friend took a little too cynical a view of debates. My experience of debates has taught me that they change climates of opinion, and climates of opinion in this connection can very well affect the next Price Review. So I think it is right that we should debate these matters, and I am glad that this one has been debated here.
Certainly, my noble friend's suggestion for a five-year examination, and a Review every five years, might be well worthy of consideration. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, wants a declaration of intent which seemed to be the same point on this aspect of the problem: Is the Annual Review the right one? I tend to think

1129
in present circumstances, that we shall have to stick to the Annual Review, because the Annual Review is, of course, a regulator, and the regulator has in present circumstances to be used annually. If we can devise a way of getting away from this Annual Review, then perhaps we ought to do it. But I should be rather reluctant to recommend it to my right honourable friend in our present knowledge and in present circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, had certain strictures to pass on my Party as a Party of the urban areas, with no interest in the agricultural and rural areas. That, I think, is what they said. I was amazed at this, because I remember the inter-war years, as I have mentioned before; and I remember that the real change in agricultural policy—the change by Government towards agriculture—came as a result of the Act of 1947, which was introduced by the Party to which I belong, which the noble Lady refers to as the Party of only the urban interests. I know what went on at that time: I was close enough to much of it. I eventually ended up in a position in the Ministry, working with Tom Williams; and I know very well that one has to face the pressures of the urban areas, as this Government have to do. But I think that in the end, as a result of passing the 1947 Act we produced the right way of governing agriculture for the future.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did not say that his Party only suffered from urban members. I said that 93 per cent. of the population of this country is an urban population, so that there is only 7 per cent. of the others. Of that 7 per cent., I think that, on the whole, we have a slightly larger proportion. Therefore, it is harder work for the Minister of Agriculture in a Labour Government than it is for my Party, although I entirely agree that the weight of urban population is something which affects us all.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I also point out to the noble Lord that the change in agricultural policy, culminating in the 1947 Act, was brought about by the war?
LORD CHAMPION: I was just going to say to the noble Viscount that we did not see the 1914–18 war produce the same sort of effect.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It was not the same war.
LORD CHAMPION: It was not the same war, but the prices went up in precisely the same way; and, strangely enough, during the 1914–18 war the agricultural industry had precisely the same sort of attention paid to it for that short period. But immediately afterwards the Coalition (which, it is true, was led by Mr. Lloyd George at the time), having passed what I fancy I remember as being the Wheat Act, very promptly, under the slightest pressure for cheaper foods from abroad, repealed that Act. That was done by a Coalition Government the vast majority of whose members were Tories. But I seem to be becoming quite Party political about this, and that is the last thing I should wish to do, in a friendly sort of debate on an agricultural matter. The noble Lady was quite right, of course: the Tory Party have the greater portion of support from the rural areas, which makes it all the more commendable that my own Party passed the 1947 Act and have not forgotten agriculture in this Price Review.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in what I thought was a very thoughtful speech, talked about this whole business of balancing imports with home production. So did the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—also in, if I may say so, an excellent speech. They stressed the need, because of the balance-of-payments crisis, of stepping up home production. Now this is all a matter for the Government's consideration, and will be part of the consideration that is going on in connection with the National Economic Development Plan and the place within it of the agricultural industry. Indeed, the opening paragraph of this White Paper deals with this very aspect of it.
But, my Lords, I think that a very close study must be made of the point at which the home production price would outweigh the advantage to the economy of the savings on imports. Quite frankly,

1131
I must admit that I have been unable to find anywhere the results of a very close study of this problem by economists. And economists must study it, in order to try to find out the point at which greater advantage comes to us by importing something more cheaply than by stepping up our own production in this country and using for this particular purpose resources that are short. I admit the problem. I say that this study must be made; and if it is not made by my right honourable friend the First Secretary he will be failing in his duty and will not be able to fit the agricultural industry into his general plan as he hopes to do. But I do not pretend that this is easy. I admit that I welcomed the statement that, in the present circumstances, this is not a bad Review. Of course, in this day when so many people are saying that it is a bad Review, one looks anywhere for support, and I was glad to have it from the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put a question to me. It was a straight question and was, as I understand it, "Has the small farmer a future and is it right that he should be encouraged? "This is a very good question—one always says that when one does not quite know the answer. But this is a question that has exercised my mind repeatedly during all the years of my political association with farming. This Review raises the question again. On the one hand, we have appeared to be deliberately setting out to help the small farmer and, on the other hand, we say, or appear to say, that we must ease him out in the interests of producing holdings of a size that can take full advantage of technological progress. This is the point that the noble Earl put to me quite fairly.
It has worried me for quite a long time. Clearly, what we must not do is to use taxpayers' money to enable us to ensure a good standard of living for the small farmer who has clearly an uneconomic unit, if by doing so we give much more than we ought to be giving to those whose standards of living are such that they do not need any increase. This is a problem. It is an old problem of farming subsidies, that of giving to those who do not need it in order to keep in production those who do. This is not an easy question to answer. I discussed
1132
it with my right honourable friend because he, too, recognises this problem. I believe that in the Review and in his longer-term thinking he is working towards assisting the small farmer who is not too small to have his farm made into a reasonably viable economic unit, as is set out in this Review. In this connection, I regard the farm records scheme, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, as a very useful step in this direction, as is the extension of the production grants and the revised Small Farmer schemes.
There is still a place for the small farmer within our economy; there are also sound economic reasons for merging the uneconomic units into larger ones. This relates to the study that is going on at this very time, the study to which I referred when I answered the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, last week. I believe I now understand what he meant when he was talking about the "golden pitchfork", clearly related to something called the "golden bowler hat". I know what he meant, but this must be one of the considerations: can we devise incentives that will cause the man with a small, uneconomic unit to give up without hardship? This is a big problem. It has been said to me: if you help the small farmer out of his unit, what are you going to do about the small shopkeeper whom you help out of his unit by cutting out resale price maintenance? But that case is different. In one case we are using a scarce raw material, which land happens to be. We must aim at a further redistribution of Exchequer assistance in such a way as not to concentrate too much on the large and well-equipped holdings, and not on those which are too small to be farmed on a full-time basis, but on the medium units which generally succeed, with help, in making themselves efficient enough to survive.
The noble Lord, Lord Abinger, made some points, and I will write to him about them. I have already taken up much longer than I had originally intended. I recognise that some of the points the noble Lord made on the question of the use of land and the taking away of good agricultural land for other purposes are valuable ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, gave us a speech based on a special consideration of the supply of beef. He has an

1133
exceptional knowledge of genetics, and his views are worthy of consideration by my right honourable friend. I will certainly ask the Departments concerned to pay special attention to his speech. He said that milk should be taken out of the Annual Review and left to the Milk Marketing Board. The difficulty here is that the Milk Marketing Board think only in terms of milk, and in the Annual Review the Government must think in terms of the whole of agricultural production. In this connection, I must say that the National Farmers' Union, who are greatly interested in this matter, have never suggested that we should accept the view put forward by the noble Lord.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord does the Milk Marketing Board an injustice. They have done a great deal for beef production. They have made artificial insemination go. They have used it for beef bulls almost to a greater extent than for dairy bulls. They have set up progeny performance testing bull stations and are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on that aspect of modernising the beef structure of the cattle industry. I think we must give them credit for the magnificent work they have done, which is the envy of the whole world.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I know of this aspect of the work of the Milk Marketing Board and praise them for it, but it is a by-product of their handling of milk and does not affect my argument here. We ought not to leave milk purely to the Milk Marketing Board but must bring it into the general Review. I believe that the National Farmers' Union is right in this.
It is understandable that the critics of the Annual Review have concentrated upon guaranteed prices and on arguing that insufficient attention has been paid to the level of farm incomes. The fact is that in past years the trends of production, including the trends of milk production, the rise in net income and the continued improvement in efficiency, point to a very healthy state of affairs in our farming. The danger of bringing about a surplus of production by incautious increases in guaranteed prices is too well known to need emphasising here. Over-production is harmful, not only to the Exchequer but also to the
1134
farmer himself. Hence we cannot take seriously the suggestion that the increase in the price of milk is mean or that the combination of measures taken to encourage beef production is overcautious.
There is much more that I could say and much I have been prepared to say, but, at the end of a much too long speech, I will drop it, out of consideration for the House. I will end by saying that we believe that the Review and our policy as a whole will stimulate and accelerate the further development of a progressive industry, an industry which will become—and this is what we mean and talk about in the Review—less dependent on Exchequer support, while making its essential contribution to our national economy and providing a fair reward for those who earn their living on the land.
9.25 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this balanced, informative and widely-searching debate. Before withdrawing my Motion, I should like to refer, quite briefly, to one or two of the speeches most indicated for particular reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke for the Liberals. I am still unable to grasp many of the essentials of Liberal agricultural policy, except that it would be a bad thing if the country were flooded with milk—a picturesque theme for a book of science fiction—and that people should not have the food for nothing. As a dairy and corn farmer, I can easily agree with both those propositions.
There was a remarkable degree of agreement, I think, between the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and myself in diagnosing the cause of the farmers' indignation last week. He said that it was because they expected too much; but I think he seemed to skip like a lately born lamb over the fact that they had been told to expect at least that much from the men who now govern us at this moment. If the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, as expressed this afternoon, had been more widely advertised before the Election, the farmers might not have expected quite so much: but, then, we might also have had a different Government.

1135
The noble Lord also said that if the notional £25 million per annum for increased efficiency was wrong now, then it had always been wrong. This is by no means a Party political point, but it does not stand to reason. The fact is, as noble Lords will appreciate, that there is less and less room for increasing efficiency. I am not by any means saying that the watershed came between the Price Reviews of 1964 and 1965, but I think it is something that the Government will have to look at before long.
My noble friend Lord Hurd, a youthful and robust elder statesman, gave us a most illuminating maiden speech, and a graphic picture of the farming scene, with a number of highlights and a certain amount of salutary advice to the Government of the day—the sort of advice he was always ready to give to the previous Government, and which he will no doubt give to the Government which shortly follows. I hope that all will be wise enough to benefit from that advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Collison, is another agricultural statesman, from a different Party but equally dedicated to the good of agriculture. He spoke from deep and thoughtful experience, and in a fine ringing voice that we all hope to hear again on many occasions. As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has just said, he contributes knowledge of a particular aspect of agriculture which heretofore has been without a spokesman in your Lordships' House; but his knowledge clearly extends far beyond that particular but vital interest.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his winding up. I said that he would be impressive. He needed to be. He was. He wrung my heart by his description of the victimisation of
1136
Labour Ministers directly they take office, purely and unjustly on account of the colour of their Party's flag. It struck me that, if everything noble Lords opposite have said about the golden years of my neighbour Tom Williams is true, it is strange that this prejudice should exist. It seemed somewhat inconsistent. The noble Lord alarmed me, I must frankly say, by his description of the Lucullian standards that the Ministers now set their country hosts, which confirms my already stated anxiety. I am bound to wonder, in the light of it, whether all the Bentleys that the noble Lord, Lord Blyiton, saw blocking the passage to Westminster, really belonged to farmers. The noble Lord also set himself the task of answering a substantial number of questions. If I set myself the task of answering his answers, he and I, on lonely Benches I fear, might indeed be here beyond the dawn.
I end with a phrase addressed to the noble Lord which I, glimpsed in the evening paper about seven hours ago, referring, I believe, to two pugilists—a form of combat in which the noble Lord and I were never engaged, at least with each other—"Here's to the next time!" I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SAINT ANNE, SOHO BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.